A RESIDENT RESPONDS TO "A LOOK BACK, IN HOPE OF MOVING FORWARD"

"My dad always told me never pick a fight you can't win. The cc clearly started their lawsuit without the will or the resources to see it through. If you look at the whole situation objectively it is clear that this was not about canals or dredging, or who should be responsible. Instead it was all about pride. The cc group had long said the canals would never get dredged, that they would see to it. Some were even so bold as to taunt certain canal lot owners and tell them it would never happen. Along the way every dirty trick in the book was hurled out to create an almost insurmountable obstacle that seemed to derail the effort. But one by one these obstacles were overcome. They said we would never get the permit. We did. They said we could never get the board support and votes. We did. They said it couldn't be done for less than 3 million dollars, a tactic they used no doubt to scare everyone.Once again we did, and for way less than what the cc said. When it became clear they had lost, like hurt children, they threw a tantrum, disrupting meetings, interfering with the dredging contracts, the bank loan, etc. They set out to destroy the reputation of several board members who supported the project, even publicly claiming criminal acts had been committed. And when they finally, after two years of legal wrangling, get before a judge to have it heard, what do they do? They back down. They settle, getting the other side to say the State owns the canal bottoms. Do the cc actually believe that matters? It was a "red herring" issue that they trumped up to cast dispersions on the 09 board. It didn't work. And now, the best part is, they agreed the 09 board members did nothing wrong. Nothing. The cc now has to defend themselves in a counter suit for destroying  reputations, contractual interference and so on.Wow. One has to wonder, do they even realize what they agreed to? Based on all the election propaganda in my mailbox before the annual meeting, I don't think they do."
SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com 

THE 2012 ANNUAL MEETING - A LOOK BACK, IN HOPE OF MOVING FORWARD

THE ANNUAL MEETING

The Wedgefield Plantation Association Annual Meeting was held on November 19th, at 10:00 AM, at Georgetown High School Auditorium.  The Board Members in attendance were Wilson, Walton, McBride, Garrison, and Huggins.  Security was hired for the meeting. Huggins certified the mailing, and it was announced that there was a quorum.  Nominations from the floor were called for three times.  There were no nonimations from the floor. 

When it was announced that the ballots would be collected, a dispute developed.  A few residents began to call out as they stood in the aisle, stating they weren't going to be allowed to vote.  One stated he had driven from North Myrtle Beach and was only a few minutes late.  Another resident, wanted to turn in a friend's proxy because the friend had intended to be there, but now had a sick mother and husband.  Others complained that their friends had been turned away because they were late, and had left the building.  It was stated that there was no time limit printed in the mailing.  When all was said and done, those there were provided ballots, those who had left were called and allowed to vote, and the person who had brought a friend's proxy was not allowed to vote.  Three important notes:  (1) Garrison served as Election Inspector, during a tough meeting and appeared to weigh each concern as they arose during the day, ethically and in the best interests of the community.  (2) Residents, elections have been lost and won by one or two votes.  Consider using your proxy to get your vote counted.  You can still opt to attend the meeting.  Too many times, life gets in the way of our opportunity to attend the meeting and vote.  (3)  Board Members, consider making a file titled "2012 Annual Meeting Preparation" and add a note regarding this issue.  This is not a criticism of the Board.  Do you realize that the Board Secretary just about has to start from scratch each year, in developing this package?

The counting began by the Election Committee and one of the next orders of business was approval of the 2009 and 2010 Annual Meeting Minutes.  That's right, they had to approve two years of minutes. During the 2010 Annual Meeting, when they prepared to approve the 2009 Annual Meeting minutes there were substantial errors.   Some wanted the minutes from both meetings read.  Those who didn't, scoffed, but they were read.  Again, the 2009 minutes had errors.  McBride read both sets, despite guff from some in the audience.

A Concerned Citizen wanted an opinion from one of their attorneys regarding the canals added to the minutes.  It didn't happen, but this is how far down hill - a slippery slope, we've come to in the recent history of our governance.

Some residents complained aloud that the meeting was more like a monthly meeting, rather than an Annual Meeting.  It was disorganized and at times Huggins apologized, as Board Secretary.

At one point in the meeting a Concerned Citizen asked if the declaratory judgement from the October 3rd, 2011 court hearing could be read into the record.  It was explained to her that while there was a court ruling, that it was not a declaratory judgement.  McBride said that he had a copy and would read it into the record.

"ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS (COUNTERCLAIMS STILL ACTIVE)"

Before we begin a few important "time" details:  In the Court of Common Pleas, C/A No.09-CP-22-1675, was signed by Larry B. Hyman, Jr., Judge, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, on November 16, 2011.  It was filed in the court record on November 22, 2011.

Note:  If you would like to receive a complete PDF copy, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner  at the following address and I'll be happy to send it to you.  Here is the address:  wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com.

What does this have to do with the Annual Meeting and the election of Board Members?  Plenty!  First, the Concerned Citizen candidates ran on a platform that stated they won on October 3rd.  They made promises of residents getting their canal assessments back, there were errors in the canal bank loan, etc., right up until the day of the Annual Meeting.  They asked for your vote, your support, under false premise.  This lawsuit brought by Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas, supported by their Concerned Citizen members, has been fought out at our Board table over the last two years.  During that time they recalled two Board Members, under SC Non Profit Law, removed a Board President who had received more votes than anyone in the history of the WPA, refused a recall petition brought under the same laws, and  held back fact, from members of their own support network.  

Here are a few important quotes from the document:

"The parties have stipulated that the State owns the beds to the canals as they are navigable tidal waterways and no statute grants the State's ownership rights to another party. See, State v. Pacific Guano Co., 22S.C .50, 84, 1884 WL 4624, 22 (1884).  Because none of the other issues in this involve the State, the parties stipulate that the State may be dismissed as a party to this case.  The State, Plaintiff's and other named Defendants acknowledge that this Order in no way addresses any rights, duties or obligations of the Board of Directors for Wedgefield Plantation Association regarding the maintenance, dredging or any other activity pertaining to the canals and, therefore, this Order,  in no way, addresses or rules upon those rights, duties, or obligations."

"The Defendants specifically deny any wrongdoing associated with the votes for the dredging of the canals, the financing of the dredging of the canals and the collection of assessments from the members of the Wedgefield Plantation Association and for any other acts allegedly performed by these defendants and more fully described in the complaint and, therefore, this Order, in no way, finds or establishes any such wrongdoing by the Defendants."

Review the article at this site titled, "Where's The Beef".  The campaign letter described in the article arrived at my home around November 6th, long after the Oct. 3rd hearing.  Review the statements they made in an effort to secure your vote and give them the power to continue on their destructive path, on your assessment dollars. You might say, "well they lost the election".  I've heard that the votes were close, which means many of our residents didn't take the time to ask to review records and force these individuals to prove what they were saying.  It takes time to write and ask for a response or to review a document, and go to the office to review, but this is where we live, and if we want to move forward we have to get the facts. 

THE RESULTS

In the end, our residents spoke. Zieske, Thomas, and Wilson, the very individuals who brought the lawsuit, launched a 2011 campaign to bring it to the Board table at your expense, lost.  The winners were:  three year terms for McBride, Cline, and McMillin, and one year terms for DeMarchi and Walters.

One By-Law Amendment passed:  Policy Manual Changes:  "A motion to change the Policy Manual must be presented at an open Board Meeting posted on the WPA website for resident comments, and  not voted on until the following meeting."

Our 2011 candidates all had a lot to say.  Hold on to their platforms and writings and watch and see if they walk the talk.   For those who say, "we won", you won't know that for sure until you follow their actions and votes at the Board table.

A SPECIAL NOTE:  Huggins apologized for the lack of organization.  Our office secretary was sick a few days prior to the meeting.  She couldn't help illness, but those last few days are time intensive.  It takes a lot of advance preparation for the sign in, counting, etc.  Two people stepped forward to help the effort:  Peggy Phillips and Jude Davis.  They each deserve a big thank you for all that they did, to help move forward.

DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT?  YOU CAN WRITE THE EDITOR AT:  wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com.  I'll be happy to publish your comments.

 

THANK YOU!!! - HAPPY THANKSGIVING

The Wedgefield Examiner has had over 200 hits since the Annual Meeting.  We haven't gone out of business.  There is plently to write about. We'll start posting again on the weekend. 

As Editor, I'm thankful for the readers who check in.  It was time to take a rest for a few days.  No violins necessary, but there has been illness and the death of my mother to cope with.

Please visit on the weekend.  We have a lot to cover.

Thanks!

Happy Thanksgiving! 

TWO LETTERS - (1) Wijthoff Receives A Response To His Mailing, (2) Another Resident Responds, (3) What Do You Think?

A RESIDENT SENDS TACO WIJTHOFF A RESPONSE TO HIS MAILING

The following letter was sent to Wijthoff via US mail, in response to a mailing he sent that arrived at homes throughout Wedgefield on November 14th.  His document can be viewed at this site, "A Resident's Letter Regarding The Election".    

The name of the author of this letter has been removed at Wijthoff's request.  It is written by a long term female resident, who is elderly, and sold real estate here in Wedgefield.  She is an active Concerned Citizen.  The salutation and introductory statement indicate that it was sent to more than Wijthoff.

My Dear Neighbors,

This is in answer to Taco Wijthoff regarding the election November 19 and the candidates.

1. Ron had just undergone triple by-pass, and resigned on the advice of his doctor.
2. Carol would have been left on the Board whose main agenda was to get the canals dredged at the exspense of the entireWPA.  There is no way one vote could have prevented it.
3. As for the cost to put pipes under the road, you may have found someone  to do it for less, but probably not any better.  Most Management companies use the same contractors all of the time, and charge $200.00 each for additional estimates.  Wow, there is an additional $400.00 charge to obtain three estimates.
4. No doubt a shanty woul have cost less for an office, however, an architect was employed in the interest of esthetics who also handled procuring bids and all of the follow up. The canal group must have liked it as they commissioned an artist to paint a large mural for $800.00.
5. Carol, Fred and George started the law suit because the new board twisted our Covenants and Restrictions and By-laws, falsified the permit for dredging, and ignored all other warnings, including legal opinions, that they were proceeding illegally.
6. Who contacted the newspapers first?  As I recall the concerned citizens did so in rebutal to the first article.
7. George hauled off and slugged someone who was posing a threat to his wife who still was not steady on her feet after hip repacement.  You are forgetting that this same man pushed an elderly, frail man down his steps and just left him there without determining how badly he was hurt.  He did, however, take the time to call the Sheriff in order to save his own hide.  That was fast thinking.  Maybe an inborn trait? 
8. The Concerned Citizens want the legal issues resolved, not swept under the carpet. 

Please vote for Ron, Fred, Jackie, George and Carol.  They never lied, deceived, the members, nor twisted the rules to suit their own personal agendas.  They governed in the interest of the community.

Sincerely,

P.S.  I heard that you told Johnny Huggins you hoped his cancer would return.  How loving is that? Would you feel the same if it were your wife?

____________________

A RESIDENT EMAILS RESPONSE TO THE LETTER ABOVE 

The following response was received at this site in response to the letter above. 

My Dear _________,

You certainly have been brainwashed by the cc. They have made you forget your time here as a real estate agent selling property along the canals with the promise that the permit to dredge was in hand and the dredging would begin immediately.  In fact, you even told some present day residents that the canals were our greatest amenity.  This memory loss could perhaps explain some of your remarks.

1. Ron had triple by-pass six months before the annual meeting.  He chose to stay on the Board but not to attend meetings.  Has he checked with his doctor to make sure he is able to attend to his duties as a Board member, or will he quit again?  I understand from Jude Davis that he sent her a very nasty letter saying he wouldn't work with her - although he resigned before the election results were announced. I am sure she has kept a copy that she would be glad to show you.
2. Three of your cronies quit on election day.  Carol had ample opportunity, and was totally involved, in appointing their replacements.  She quit, along with two others, with-in four weeks of the annual meeting.  At no time then, or subsequently, were the canal property owners or family members the majority of the Board.
3. Where did you get your information about management companies charging for multiple bids?  As for expensive pipes, how do you justify awarding an unlicensed contractor a contract for $50,000 to put a pipe under a road?  This same contractor earned in excess of $800,000 from the WPA over a nine year period.
4. The WPA Board spent about $12,000 on architctural services for an office that the community had overwhelmingly voted down.  Carol and Ron were on the board that voted to build the office at an executive session--a big no no. They awarded site development contracts, engineering work, and architectural services without seeking competitive bids.  They hired a residential builder to build a commercial building without providing oversight.  Ask to look at the check register and you will find that the builder was paid in his name not a company name.  The WPA Board authorized the mural, not the canal people.
5. Yu accuse the new board of falsifying the permit for dredging yet provide no proof.  Be careful when you make such accustions.  The permit application for dredging was made many years ago with the permission of the then board.  The 2009 Board followed the opinions of the attorney-of-record as required by our documents.  They did not opinion shop and change attorneys or deliberately not follow the attorney-of-record's advice.  All attorney opinions were in writing and available for review.  Can the same be said today?
6. The cc's contacted the local papers at every opportunity including inviting them to Board meetings.  Board meetings are for members only!!!!
7. The person George Wilson slugged was leaving the building and no where near his wife.  The police reports for the incident you refer to are available at the office.  The frail gentleman you refer to broke into a home by opening a door and stepping inside.  He coudl not have been pushed to the ground because that would have involved several left turns and three landings.  In fact, this frail gentleman had already made a few incoherent phone calls before the police arrived.
8. The cc's had the opportunity to resolve the canal issue on October 3.  They refused after putting the community through hell for two years.

Just what have your candidates accomplished in their year(s) on the Board?  The Board has been charged to enhance and protect property values as well as make decisions for the good of the community.  By simple mathematics the cc's have never been the majority of this community.  Jacky Walton's 318 votes in the 2010 election represents a clear majority, your friends on the Board removed him as president.

Your PS is cruel and deserves no answer.

__________________________

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

 

DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS?     You can send them to mclaveloux@sc.rr.com      I'll be happy to share them.                   











THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER HITS 1,000!!!

Photo Provided By:  http:///www.dreamstime.com/freestockphc

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER HAS REASON TO CELEBRATE!!!!

I created the blog all by myself! I am quite the computer illiterate, determined to get a blog up and running.  I had offers of help - thank you, but I had a need to do this on my own.  I did it!  I realize it needs whistles and bells, but I'll get there.  Each day a new lesson is learned, often the hard way by trial and error.  Some days I learn things by accident and don't know how I did it and can't repeat it.  Today, it took me 4 hours to learn how to insert imagines, free imagines, but here it is!

The blog, allows me to stay committed to good governance, report what is happening at the WPA Board table, backed up with documentation, and name the persons responsible.

Today, I'm proud of 1,000 hits to the blog (really proud of getting this picture up)!!

Stay tuned!!!

 

THE WPA 2010 AUDIT

BACKGROUND

I emailed the Board and asked to review the 2010 Audit including the management letter. I asked the Board to email me if there was a problem with my review of the record.   Board Member McBride, wrote that I should be allowed access to the record.  Today, prior to my 10:00 AM appointment I emailed the office to verify whether I would be allowed access.  The staff secretary responded that I could review the record and stated that two Board Members had sent their approval.  The rest of the Board had failed to respond.  I asked who the second Board Member was and she stated that it was Garrison.  My thanks to both of them for answering a resident question, and for their "open door" treatment of this request.

I felt that it was important to review the fiscal health of the Association, prior to voting.  This year we have several Board Members who are running for re-election.  They are Wilson, Thomas, Walters, McBride and McMillin.  Additionally, candidates Pietkewicz and Zieske have served on previous Boards.  Infact,  Zieske served on the 2010 Finance Committee.

Recently, I have not been allowed copies of documents.  I had been paying for them when some on the Board made special rules, for special residents.  Today, I hand copied the audit management letter.   Here it is for your review:

______________________________

Lawlor & Brady, LLC

Certified Public Accountants

5187 Horry Drive

Murrells Inlet, SC 29576

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the Wedgefield Plantation Association, Inc. as of and for the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, we considered the Wedgefield Plantation Association, Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the organization's internal control.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the proceeding paragraph and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be significant deficiencies.

A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis.  A significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or a combination of control deficiencies that adversely affects the Organization's ability to initiate, authorize, record, process or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the Organization's financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the Organization's internal control.  We consider the following deficiencies to be significant deficiency in internal control:

During our audit we discovered that several invoices were paid without proper back up and authorization.  The auditor will review these during our audit conference.

During our audit we discovered that the operating bank reconciliation was not properly prepared.  The closing date of the bank statement did not match with the financial statement dates and outstanding checks were improperly listed.  In addition, the Edward Jones accounts did not have bank reconciliations prepared resulting in a significant internal control deficiency internal control deficiency.

During our audit we discovered that computer file backups were kept in a file left on the premises.  One copy of the accounting files backup must be kept off-site under the custody of a responsible party such as the Association's Treasurer or other executive officer. Although the Association utilizes an on-line backup service (Carbonite), these services may prove to be inadequate during a power outage or other weather related situation.  When it comes to data security a little redundancy can go a long way.

This communication is intended solely for the information and use of management and the board of directors and is not intended and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

___________________________

Does the management letter cause you any concern about the incumbent candidates?  I've presented the letter in an effort to provide you with information that may help you determine who you will vote for this weekend.  I'm concerned about the stated deficiencies.

As I reviewed the audit itself, I'm concerned about the uncollected assessments.  I'm concerned about the message sent by a failure to collect the unpaid assessments according to our governing documents. Failure to make every attempt to collect legally and according to our governing documents just sends a message that there is inequity in the treatment of our residents.

I'm concerned about several of the line items.  I reviewed the detail. Take the opportunity to set up an appointment to review the entire document. This is a report on how our assessment dollars are managed.

HOW DOES THIS IMPACT THE ELECTION?

In the end, you'll be the judge and vote.  Consider cleaning the slate, and giving Janine Cline, Alan DeMarchi, and Bill Steiner an opportunity to move Wedgefield forward.  Consider incumbent McBride's  proven dedication to adherence to our governing documents and open discussion at Board Meetings.  NOTE:   In fairness, while McMillin is an incumbent, he was not responsible as Treasurer and did not have a seat on the Finance Committee, during the period of time reflected in this audit.

You should be concerned that in July 2010, after their hostile Board take over that the Concerned Citizen element of the Board, took over finances, ignored our governing documents, and the platform of their candidates will take you back to their financial tactics!!!!



A RESIDENT'S LETTER REGARDING THE ELECTION

Taco Wijthoff

90 Ricefield Place

Georgetown, SC 29440

November 12, 2011

My Dear Neighbors:

The election for the Wedgefield Plantation Association Board of Directors is coming up on November 19.  Here are some of my thoughts, and yes I  have put my name on this letter!!!!

Here is why I cannot vote for the FIVE so-called "concerned citizen" candidates Ron, Carol, George, Fred, and Jackie:

*Ron and Carol betrayed us when they were on the board in 2008.  They quit!  They left us in the lurch, and turned the board over to members sympathetic to the canal issue.  THEY are thus to blame for the canals being dredged.  It would never have happened if they had stayed on!

*They also betrayed us again and again in their previous terms on the board.  They approved wasteful spending with a crony contractor, for example $50,000 on pipes under the road that should have cost only a few thousand, had they shopped around.

*They built an office building that cost us three times what it should have.

*Ron had the roads "surfaced" for a king's ransom, as if that coating would hold an 80,000 pound concrete truck.  It was just plain stupid.

*These so-called "concerned citizens" contacted the newspapers and spread horrible stories about our beautiful and full-of-love plantation.

*Carol, George and Fred started the lawsuit that has cost us all dearly.

*They support a board member who is up for reelection that could have killed a fellow neighbor by sucker punching him at the end of a WPA meeting.  Can you Imagine???? Do we want that kind of bully on the board???

These five want the controversies to go on, and they continue to ruin Wedgefield.  That's why I cannot vote for the so-called "concerned citizen" candidates; I will vote for the other five candidates.  I do not know half of them, but that's alright.  This is not Chicago, where a few full-of-themselves bullies think they can hold a life-long claim to the WPA board.  I want to give the fresh blood a chance.  I urge you to join me in voting for:

Janine Cline * Alan DeMarchi * John McBride * Larry McMillin * Bill Steiner



Sincerely,

Taco Wijthoff

PS:  I hear Mr. Huggins may step down after the elections so Ron or Carol can be appointed should one of them not make it in.  It is Chicago alright.

VOTING PREPARATION - ASK TO REVIEW THE COMPLETE 2010 AUDIT

WHY WAIT TO REVIEW THE 2010 AUDIT BEFORE YOU VOTE?

The ten candidates have made finances a key element of their platforms. Some of the candidates have served on the Board and should have a record. 

The Concerned Citizens are discussing giving you back your dredging assessment payments , declaring legal victories that we've proven are undocumented  - NO signed ruling/order, and have recently engaged the Board Attorney to start acting at your expense, with no one's word but theirs as to exactly what the court ruled.

A review of the 2010 audit, including the management letter would provide a unique review of the Concerned Citizen Candidates and whether they have acted according to good business judgement and sound accepted accounting principles.  Why?  In June 2010, the Concerned Citizens, through a hostile Recall, took over the Board.  Review of the 2010 audit and management letter would allow you, the voter, to draw some conclusions, as to whether you should vote for them, and allow them to oversee our funds again.

I don't have any inside information as to what the audit reveals but I view it as a critical document to assist in making a decision as to who to vote for, who to trust, with my assessment dollars.Just like the court ruling, I want to see and read for myself.  Did the Concerned Citizens demonstrate, as provided by an outside audit, that they will follow through responsibly?

George Wilson and Fred Thomas played key roles in the governance of our association after the recall.  Zieske sat on the Finance Committee.  This is your opportunity to view them in a documented report, before you vote.

I have sent the following to the Board:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"REQUEST TO REVIEW 2010 AUDIT, ATTENTION TREASURER MCMILLIN

Please distribute to the Board and place a copy in the correspondence file.

Board,

I will come to the office on November 15th, at 10:00 AM to review the 2010 audit, including the management letter.  If you view my request to review the complete document, including the management letter a problem, please respond via email, prior to the scheduled time for the visit.  If you deny any portion of the request, please explain.  I'll appreciate your cooperation."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will they answer?  If they do will they allow me to see the complete report, including the management letter?  They should.  As Executive Director of a non profit who had a CPA performing our accounting services, and a yearly audit, I looked forward to sharing the entire document with Board and the benefactors of our services.  The audit and management letter were required on all grant applications, and as we responded to requests for proposals. It is a guiding document for improvement and change, if needed, and reassurance to the community at large, that you are operating under sound accounting principles and good business judgement.  While the Wedgefield Plantation Association Board, is not seeking grants, in similar fashion they are asking for your money through your assessments, and your approval through your votes on individual candidates.  I don't think it is too much to ask, WILL THEY?  I'll update this article on Tuesday, November 15th.  In the mean time, perphaps you should email or call and ask to see the entire 2010 audit.

UPDATE TO THE ARTICLE TITLED, "WHERE'S THE BEEF?"

BACKGROUND

Please review the previous article, "Where's The Beef?"  Much of what Wilson, Thomas, Walters, Zieske, and Pietkewicz are promising you in their "campaign literature", is based on their  interpretation of a court hearing on October 3rd.  They are making promises about how they will proceed when infact, we don't have a final written ruling/order.  In fact, Thomas made a motion at the October Meeting to start spending our assessment dollars to drag the association into potential legal procedings.   Since the Concerned Citizen element of the Board voted to approve Thomas' motion, wouldn't you like to know, that they had all the "legal facts of the ruling?

I sent the following request for information to the Board: 

From: mclaveloux@sc.rr.com [mclaveloux@sc.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 10:57 AM
To: Wedgefield Office
Subject: CONFIRMATION OF A DOCUMENT'S EXISTENCE

Please forward to the Board and place a copy in the correspondence file.

Board,

ATTENTION:  Johnny Huggins, Legal Chair

My request requires a simple yes or no.  Does the Board have a copy of an order
from the Oct. 3rd. court hearing? You may have voted on a premature motion by
Thomas, during the October meeting, to start a process, based on the October 3rd
court case.  Candiates currently serving on the Board running for re-election,
are making statements about what was determined on October 3rd, and what steps
the Board should take, based on the ruling.  I have checked the court website,
made some phone calls, and still no one has seen the order.  As a resident, I
would like a response from you, since so many of you are candidates.  Just a
simple yes or no will answer my questions.

Please respond as soon as possible.

Madeline Y. Claveloux 

The only Board Member to respond was McBride:

---- John McBride <> wrote:
> I have not seen any final court order signed by the Judge.  Until the Judge
signs an order there is no resolution to the law suit. 

 
Kind Regards, John McBride 

I have sent the following response to the Board:Kathy, please send to the Board and place a copy in the correspondence file. 

Board,

First, thank you John McBride for answering a resident question.  To the rest of
you currently serving on the Board and running for re-election, how can you make
promises to get money back, project potential legal options, etc.. when you lack
legal confirmation and the detail associated with  a signed court order/ruling? 
I posted information at http://thewedgefieldexaminer.blogspot.com over the
weekend.  I'll add this information as an update. 

Madeline Y. Claveloux 

VOTERS:  Remember that McBride answered and give him your support.  MOST IMPORTANT:  Remember Wilson, Thomas, Walters, Zieske, and Pietkewicz are just making promises to use your assessment dollars to drag you into more lawsuits!




________________________________



WHERE'S THE BEEF?

I, as most of you, received a unsigned mailing, post marked November 2nd, from post office box 244.  While no one signed it, under a section titled, "Elections", it endorses Ron Pietkewicz, Fred Thomas, Jackie Walters, George Wilson, and Carol Zieske.  It states, "they are more than willing to do the job that needs to be done in Wedgefield."  If this document represents their beliefs, as to how to proceed in behalf of Wedgefield, and asks you - as addressed - "Fellow Property Owners", to vote for them, I encourage you to reread the document, and the premise it is based on, and ask....

WHERE'S THE BEEF????????

Remember the burger commercial of several years ago when the little old lady would yell, "where's the beef"?   Well I'm willing to be the little old lady of Wedgefield, and ask Pietkewicz, Thomas, Walters, Wilson, and Zieske, "where is the court order from the October 3rd. hearing?"  Just like the little old lady wanting to verify for herself there was real meat, I want the real meat of their platform, rather than the claims they are making, as to what the court decided.  I want them to present it, so I can read it and verify their claims for myself!  If they can't produce it, it isn't so.  

They claim, "The State of South Carolina was declared the owner of the canals in Wedgefield Plantation.  As a result, the WPA has NO authority or obligation to dredge or maintain the canals, the Board must now deal with a number of issues as a result of that Declaratory Judgement.

*The "Special Assessment" was illegal as well as the $175 added to our yearly assessment.

*The Board has placed liens on canal property owners who have not paid the $5,000.

*There is a matter of the bank loan with First Federal.  This transaction may be illegal also.    This  issue will have t be addressed right away." 

Demand the truth.  They are counting on you to fall into place, and take their word for it.  They want you to buy their "filler filled beef", without reading the label.  Ask them to provide you a copy of the signed order.  They won't be able to provide it.  It doesn't exist, as of November 6th.

This whole document lacks truth and integrity. They make accusations about the dredging permit, proper authorization and signature on the bank loan, and $7,500.  They are making charges like a bull without horns.  Go back to the tapes and minutes of the Board Meetings.  The dredging permit was recently discussed.  Go to the minutes of the August 2009 Board Meeting, regarding the canal and dredging and funding public votes, and read and listen to fact.

Just for a moment, a glorious, happy, moment, as I read this document, I assumed there was another candidate running for Board - Jude Davis.  Why?  About 40%  of the publication was spent attacking Jude Davis.  Why, while promoting your candidates for election, would you find it helpful to attack a resident, who wasn't running for Board?  They pulled that hat, out of their own dark closet! 

They ask if Davis has sued you yet?   The document talks about what they view as the Board's next legal challenge, if they are in charge.  They speak about misrepresentation in the signing of the loan, and dredging permit.  Not true!  They fail to tell you the gross misrepresentation of three of their candidates:  Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas, when they sued the 2009 Board, in behalf of "Wedgefield Plantation".   THEY WEREN'T ON THE BOARD AT THE TIME. NO ONE VOTED FOR THEM TO REPRESENT US AND TO SUE, IN BEHALF OF WEDGEFIELD PLANTATION.  That's a court document you can review!

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE LEFT WITH IF THIS BURGER HAS NO BEEF?  If you elect Zieske, Wilson, Thomas, Walters, Pietkewicz, you are left with a Board without substance, quality, and truth.  MAKE THEM PROVIDE YOU WITH A COPY OF THE WRITTEN OCTOBER 3RD. COURT ORDER BEFORE YOU VOTE. DON'T TRUST THEM TO DO ANY THING IN BEHALF OF WEDGEFIELD. 

LAUGHTER, CAN LEAD TO THE SIMPLEST TRUTH

THE PREMISE & THE UPCOMING ELECTION

I had a call from a friend who had me laughing so hard I had to get off the phone.  Their idea was to put the truth, hidden in all the verbiage of the election, in simple form.  Hilarity, took over as we jested about what a short message on a post card might look like.  After we finished our conversation, I couldn't help but think what a novel approach it was, based in truth, in a simple form.

Much has been written by the Concerned Citizens about how they have to save you from the votes of that nasty 2009 canal majority Board.  We won't take the time to go over again, the lack of truth in that statement.  We'll go from the fact, that on the day of the 2008 Annual Meeting, there were six Concerned Citizens on the Board, including Zieske and Pietkewicz.

No more explaining, just the post card message that could read, something like this:

________________________________________________________________________________

I'M MAD AS HELL AT ZIESKE & PIETKEWICZ,

FOR DREDGING THE CANALS,

AND COSTING ME ALL THAT MONEY!

IF THEY WEREN'T QUITTERS - IT WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED!

NOW THEY WANT ME TO BELIEVE THEY'LL GET MY MONEY BACK?

NOW, THEY WANT TO USE MY ASSESSMENT DOLLARS TO HIRE A LAWYER, BECAUSE THEY QUIT, AND DIDN'T HELP ME?

I STILL HADN'T GOTTEN OVER MY ANGER THAT THEY QUIT, AND LET THOSE CANAL PEOPLE FINISH  BUILDING THE WPA OFFICE!

DIDN'T THEY TELL ME THAT THEY SAVED A LOT OF MY MONEY BY HURRYING IT THROUGH, WITHOUT A PUBLIC BOARD VOTE?

THE ONLY THING LEFT FOR ME TO DO IS GIVE THE NEW FRESH GROUP MY VOTES,

VOTE FOR CLINE, DEMARCHI, STEINER,

STAND TALL DURING HARD TIMES - MCBRIDE,

MCMILLIN (FINISHED THE OFFICE)

_________________________________________________________________________________

If my friend could type, the post card message, might have looked like this.  We would have included a graphic, but my friend can't type, and I don't know how to include a graphic on the blog.  You'll have to imagine a frustrated voter holding their head.