Thursday, December 27, 2012
IT MAY BE IN THE "CARDS" FOR SOME, BUT NOT ALL
The Wedgefield Examiner was on vacation for a few days. We were unable to attend the WPA December Board Meeting. Thanks to The Wedgefield Times, the tape is available. There will be more to report about the meeting after the new year holiday.
I found it interesting, but not surprising, that once again we have different privileges as residents dependent on who is asking and which board member is responding. Our policy manual contains all the information and forms a resident who wishes to use the office for an activity, would need. During the December board meeting a discussion arose regarding a group of residents who play cards in the office on Monday evenings. They pick up a key and when they are finished they deposit it in the drop box. This advantage should be available to all residents, if they follow procedure.
The procedure is that you check with the office to see if the date is available, fill out the proper form, and pay a security deposit of $50. The deposit is returned if everything is left in good order.
The Monday night card players didn't have to pay a deposit. I'm not even sure they filled out the form. From the discussion, it appeared that Treasurer DeMarchi was aware of this. In fact, he felt the policy manual should be amended so that the board could decide who pays a deposit, or not. There was a lengthy discussion and the motion failed. Thankfully! More micro management, more twists of the rules, dependent on who is making the request? I hope not in the future, but it does appear to be the case for the Monday night card players.
If memory serves me correctly, there was another card group who wanted to play cards at the office. That group was told they could only play cards when the staff secretary was in the building and that they would have to leave when she did.
I don't know who the Monday night card players are. I don't begrudge them the opportunity to play cards at the office building. I do resent the fact that we aren't all treated with the same respect, opportunity, and rules. The problem here is bigger than who gets to play cards at the office. The problem is board members who use their power for special favors. The problem is administration by cherry picking, a yes basket for those who are favored, and a no basket for those who are not. The biggest problem is failure to follow established policy at the moment of decision, and then back tracking, attempting to set new policy to cover or justify a decision made earlier. This can't be called anything but POOR LEADERSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION.
I found it interesting, but not surprising, that once again we have different privileges as residents dependent on who is asking and which board member is responding. Our policy manual contains all the information and forms a resident who wishes to use the office for an activity, would need. During the December board meeting a discussion arose regarding a group of residents who play cards in the office on Monday evenings. They pick up a key and when they are finished they deposit it in the drop box. This advantage should be available to all residents, if they follow procedure.
The procedure is that you check with the office to see if the date is available, fill out the proper form, and pay a security deposit of $50. The deposit is returned if everything is left in good order.
The Monday night card players didn't have to pay a deposit. I'm not even sure they filled out the form. From the discussion, it appeared that Treasurer DeMarchi was aware of this. In fact, he felt the policy manual should be amended so that the board could decide who pays a deposit, or not. There was a lengthy discussion and the motion failed. Thankfully! More micro management, more twists of the rules, dependent on who is making the request? I hope not in the future, but it does appear to be the case for the Monday night card players.
If memory serves me correctly, there was another card group who wanted to play cards at the office. That group was told they could only play cards when the staff secretary was in the building and that they would have to leave when she did.
I don't know who the Monday night card players are. I don't begrudge them the opportunity to play cards at the office building. I do resent the fact that we aren't all treated with the same respect, opportunity, and rules. The problem here is bigger than who gets to play cards at the office. The problem is board members who use their power for special favors. The problem is administration by cherry picking, a yes basket for those who are favored, and a no basket for those who are not. The biggest problem is failure to follow established policy at the moment of decision, and then back tracking, attempting to set new policy to cover or justify a decision made earlier. This can't be called anything but POOR LEADERSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION.
JUDGE RULES ON DISMISSAL HEARING - THE ORDER
Judge Hyman, Jr. Circuit Judge signed the following order on December 11, 2012. The order was sent by an interested resident who is not named in any of the lawsuits.
PAGE ONE:
PAGE TWO:
PAGE THREE:
PAGE FOUR:
PAGE FIVE:
PAGE SIX:
PAGE SEVEN:
PAGE EIGHT:
PAGE NINE:
PAGE TEN:
PAGE ELEVEN:
PAGE ONE:
PAGE TWO:
Sunday, December 16, 2012
DRIVE SAFELY - BE VERY ALERT - THANK YOUR BOARD IF YOU RECEIVED A TICKET
Your big brother board has determined that they know how to keep you safe. A few months ago the board had rumble strips on their agenda. DeMarchi claimed that a resident had requested them. Since all requests, comments, etc., are to be in writing I visited the correspondence file. There weren't any requests for rumble strips. Rumor had it that they were DeMarchi's idea.
Last Friday there were a lot of "blue lights" on Wedgefield Rd. Saturday I attended a party hosted by two of Wedgefield's social groups. Three people at the party had been pulled over and ticketed. I believe the fines were $155.00 and 4 points on their license. One of them told me that the officer stated that the HOA board had called and wanted the police presence. When did the board decide this? It wasn't at the November meeting. I was there. We haven't had the December meeting yet. Could this have been the act of one or two board members using their status as board members? I don't know. Someone should ask. Will it be you?
Admittedly, like all communities, we have some speeders, those who fail to stop, etc. The three people I met last night at the party are not the speeders and tailgaters. They were all over 65 and are upstanding citizens in this community. I don't need to be protected from them. If I felt I was in danger I would contact the authorities on my own. I don't need the board playing big brother. In the least, IF THIS WAS A BOARD (full board vote) action, I would expect that as a resident, I would have been made aware before they brought the authorities into our association. This is just more of your board playing big brother because they appear to think that they know more about what is best for you and perhaps you aren't smart enough to act in your own behalf.
Last Friday there were a lot of "blue lights" on Wedgefield Rd. Saturday I attended a party hosted by two of Wedgefield's social groups. Three people at the party had been pulled over and ticketed. I believe the fines were $155.00 and 4 points on their license. One of them told me that the officer stated that the HOA board had called and wanted the police presence. When did the board decide this? It wasn't at the November meeting. I was there. We haven't had the December meeting yet. Could this have been the act of one or two board members using their status as board members? I don't know. Someone should ask. Will it be you?
Admittedly, like all communities, we have some speeders, those who fail to stop, etc. The three people I met last night at the party are not the speeders and tailgaters. They were all over 65 and are upstanding citizens in this community. I don't need to be protected from them. If I felt I was in danger I would contact the authorities on my own. I don't need the board playing big brother. In the least, IF THIS WAS A BOARD (full board vote) action, I would expect that as a resident, I would have been made aware before they brought the authorities into our association. This is just more of your board playing big brother because they appear to think that they know more about what is best for you and perhaps you aren't smart enough to act in your own behalf.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
SURPRISE! - THERE IS A REORGANIZATION MEETING TONIGHT. NO SURPRISE THAT YOU WEREN'T NOTIFIED. WHERE'S THE AGENDA FOR THE DECEMBER MEETING?
Why multiple titles for one article? Same old story from this board and I'm tired of it. I'm busy getting ready for the holidays. I'm tired of the deliberate actions of this board working to keep the residents out, failing to follow the advice of a board attorney, and general disregard for policy and procedure.
First, there is more than one board member carrying the news that the board has scheduled a reorganization meeting for tonight. I'm not going to take the time to find the legal opinion and print it again. I've printed it several times. Attorney "M", and you all know who he is, but I'm not printing his name. I don't particularly admire him. He was forced on us after the 2010 Recall, said to be brilliant and know Wedgefield's long history, and then was abused and fired when he gave opinions that didn't make some of the current board members case. He did issue a written opinion on closed board meetings, including reorganization meetings. He wrote that residents should be notified and allowed to attend. This board appears to intentionally ignore legal advice. What is the big secret about who will serve as officers? They'll tell residents when THEY ARE READY!
The board meeting agenda is suppose to be posted 7 days prior to the meeting. I've checked everywhere at the WPA site and haven't found it. Did I miss something? I'm anxious to see it. I'd like to see whether we will get a report on the canal survey, etc.
This "cohesive board is so busy trying to look that way in public, that they have no time to get the real work of the association done.
First, there is more than one board member carrying the news that the board has scheduled a reorganization meeting for tonight. I'm not going to take the time to find the legal opinion and print it again. I've printed it several times. Attorney "M", and you all know who he is, but I'm not printing his name. I don't particularly admire him. He was forced on us after the 2010 Recall, said to be brilliant and know Wedgefield's long history, and then was abused and fired when he gave opinions that didn't make some of the current board members case. He did issue a written opinion on closed board meetings, including reorganization meetings. He wrote that residents should be notified and allowed to attend. This board appears to intentionally ignore legal advice. What is the big secret about who will serve as officers? They'll tell residents when THEY ARE READY!
The board meeting agenda is suppose to be posted 7 days prior to the meeting. I've checked everywhere at the WPA site and haven't found it. Did I miss something? I'm anxious to see it. I'd like to see whether we will get a report on the canal survey, etc.
This "cohesive board is so busy trying to look that way in public, that they have no time to get the real work of the association done.
Monday, December 10, 2012
A WONDERFUL HOLIDAY TREE LIGHTING AND A BIG THANK YOU
It was less than two weeks, when all through Wedgefield, residents were wondering would holiday cheer ever come? Would we have a holiday tree? Would there be cookies, hot chocolate, or any beverages to raise in good cheer? Would the trusty red suited man appear on a golf cart for residents old and young? There wasn't a plan on the horizon, the board hadn't a clue.
The Women of Wedgefield and Wedgefield Boat Club said, "we'll get our tree up", and that they did.
A tree is just a tree without lights, food and drink, and a parade, many lamented. When what to their wondering ears and minds occurred, but a ring a ding, ding, of the WPA phone. Resident, Amy Brandon was calling to volunteer! She'd round up a crew to organize a parade, a Santa, and all that is required for "good cheer"! She'd bring member young families, more than ever before, and residents experienced in providing holiday cheer.
Cookies were baked, beverages assembled, and golf carts lined up, with jolly old Nick (John Walton) ready to appear. Holiday music would ring through air by golf cart and at the circle, provided by helper extraordinaire, Mike Davis. Board members, McMillan, Jacky Walton, and Cline, would help assemble a crew to hang lights, garlands, and bows. Arrangements were made to bring gifts for children, to be dispersed through the Salvation Army. Not an item was missed on her list!
Carts lining up at the landing - 17 carts!
Amy serving refreshments
Toys for the Salvation Army
Santa (John Walton)
Children gather with Santa - even triplets!
In all seriousness, our residents and Board, owe Amy a HUGE THANK YOU! I rode in a golf cart and attended what could have been a non event. Her willingness to step forward and coordinate, provided a beautiful Holiday Tree Lighting Event. There were more young participant families than I had ever seen. Wedgefield residents were brought together to welcome this beautiful holiday season. THANK YOU AMY.
NOTE: PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS IS WRITTEN FROM MY OBSERVATIONS. I HAVE NOT ASKED, NOR HAS AMY BRANDON REVIEWED THIS ARTICLE.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
RESIDENT JUDE DAVIS SHARES COMMUNICATIONS TO AND FROM THE BOARD
Madeline,
I sent the following e-mail to the Board on November 21 as a reminder of the questions that I asked at the Annual Meeting. I have subsequently resent this twice.
All,
1. Who pays the fee for the use of credit cards in paying for the annual assessment?
2. Who maintains the spoil site?
3. I would like someone to prepare for me a comparison of the year to date expenditures and budgeted amounts for the following committees:
Legal, Roads, Drainage, Grounds, Water Amenities
Jude Davis
To date, I have not had any reply from Edmund regarding these questions. I did receive the following from Adam Anderson concerning the maintenance of the spoil site. I asked a Board member if this reply was the official position of the Board, or just a personal view. He replied that, as far as he knew, this was a personal communication from Adam. Does Adam speak for all of the members of the Water Amenities Committee? Where is his base of support?
Jude,
I really don't understand your persistence in asking this question. The expense of maintaining the spoil site would be no different than the expense of dredging. The way the regime idea has been presented is the WPA would pay X amount of money to the canal regime and it would be up to US to spend that money as we desire. The balance of ANY expense including spoil site maintenance would fall on the canal regime.You seem unhappy with the split or balance in the proportion of money contributed to the regime from off-canal lots vs on-canal, but I really fail to see how someone living off-canal would really care if the spoil site is maintained. Its unfair to project that cost on the rest of the plantation when its people like you and I that benefit from it.Let's assume we could do a maintenance dredge including engineering cost, in a year or two for $400,000. Without any WPA help, that would be about $5000 per lot. Over time, if the WPA kicks in the proposed percentages, that number would be considerably less. Are you really going to tell me that's not a plan you could support? It's logical, simple, fair, and most of all allows us to control our own destiny concerning dredging. As you witnessed Saturday, the community's acceptance on individual assessments is not very positive. Unless someone challenges the assessment from 2009 in court and has the wherewithal to see it through, we will never know if it's valid or not. What any of us think is completely irrelevant. I would prefer to stay out of court, which would take years and tens of thousands of dollars, and instead try to resolve this ourselves.
I think you make a valid point that the spoil site could use some annual maintenance and it is something I intend to look into. I don't know if this is something a group of volunteers could go out and do a few times a year or if we need a contractor to come in and do it. I will get with John McBride and the rest of the water amenities committee and get you an answer asap.
Adam Anderson
I replied:
Adam,
Thank you for a response to my question about the spoil site. I persisted in asking the question BECAUSE no one had an answer for me. (I have asked this question many times).
The WPA recently spent over $7,000 to maintain WPA property behind someone’s house. Who, besides the individual property owner, cared! Why should someone on Swamp Fox care what the circle on King George looks like, or Duck Pond Road? The responsibility for maintaining WPA property is the WPA’s regardless of where it is located. Deliberately failing to maintain WPA property is negligence on the part of the Board.
I do not know what happened Saturday. On Friday, an e-mail was sent from a canal resident to Carol Zieske who then forwarded it to her group. This e-mail decried ANY money from ANYONE being spent on maintaining the canals and was totally against a sub-association. The animosity and disharmony that you hope to avoid is still active and present here. The people who caused the stink over the first dredging seem to be prepared to fight a sub-association. It is interesting as to the number of people on your cohesive Board whose names appeared on the list of recipients.
Perhaps you could explain to me your complete reversal on individual assessments and your support of a sub-association. Sub-associations have been looked into at least three times that I know of—including a serious push in the 80’s by Dick Meyers group who petitioned the Board to allow the canal lot owners to form their own association. The Board, on the advice of counsel, said no due to the legal logistics. Adam, I believe that you know that you can’t force someone to join the association and therefore can’t assess them any fees. Who pays for those canal lot residents who don’t join? Do you assess the members more? If I understand correctly, it was Bob Garrison who decreed that individual assessments were out and pushed the sub -association. Meanwhile, nothing is happening, no plan is in place, and no money is being put aside. Were you at the meeting—heavily attended by the cc—where both Janine Cline and Bob Garrison said that by paying off the loan in 2013, the annual assessment for 2014 would go back down to $450! Where does that leave your plan for $40-$50/ household from the WPA for canal maintenance? The permit clock is ticking--or was that the plan.
The minutes from the 2011 Annual Meeting state that individual assessments are legal! These minutes were approved without correction. You are completely incorrect about having to wait until someone challenges the individual assessment in court to determine if it is legal or not. Until such time AS IT IS CHALLENGED IN COURT, individual assessments are legal. It was Carol Zieske and her group—including Bob Garrison and Jason Barrier—who fought the individual assessment. No one on the canals did. It was Carol et al who said that individual assessments were part of the By-laws but only for small amounts of money. No where in the By-laws does it give an amount. The sub-association works only if you get 100% participation. It is not viable and you are spinning your wheels and wasting time.
I have received several e-mails from Adam where he makes it clear that the opinions he expresses are his alone. Really?! I thought that as a Board member he should be solicitous of the opinions of the membership. The survey SHOULD have come out BEFORE Adam decided that a sub-association was the way to go. The survey itself was a joke—no deadline for returns, just a yes/no question, no place to sign, etc. I urge all canal lot owners to return their survey immediately! Is Adam operating without the support of the canal lot owners, or is Bob Garrison’s sub-association idea the way to go?
No one complains about spending WPA money to maintain WPA property UNTIL that property involves the canals. Once again, I must caution the Board about negligence and discrimination. Has anyone run the idea of negligence and its pitfalls by the attorney?
Our By-laws give the Board tremendous power. They can do anything they want until such time as they are challenged in court. To my knowledge, the individual assessments of 2009 have not been adjudicated and until they are found to be illegal in a court of law, they are LEGAL.
No one has answered me regarding the credit card fee. Frankly, it should be in the contract. The amounts spent on various committees are important. Each chair needs to know, and should be keeping track, of the amount spent versus the amount budgeted.
As I look at the October financials, I immediately had several questions:
Who is our resident manager? We are paying over $18,000 annually for one as well as an additional $25,000 for a management company?
Why was $10,000 budgeted for irrigation repair?
What are safety inspections?
Why did we budget $2200 for annual evaluations?
Our past due amounts are over $100,000 yet we spent over $89,000 on forgiveness of debt. Does someone have a clue?
It is a shame that these questions, like most of my other questions will find their way into the dead question box. This box is supported by apathy—on the part of the Board and the membership.
I sent the following e-mail to the Board on November 21 as a reminder of the questions that I asked at the Annual Meeting. I have subsequently resent this twice.
All,
1. Who pays the fee for the use of credit cards in paying for the annual assessment?
2. Who maintains the spoil site?
3. I would like someone to prepare for me a comparison of the year to date expenditures and budgeted amounts for the following committees:
Jude Davis
To date, I have not had any reply from Edmund regarding these questions. I did receive the following from Adam Anderson concerning the maintenance of the spoil site. I asked a Board member if this reply was the official position of the Board, or just a personal view. He replied that, as far as he knew, this was a personal communication from Adam. Does Adam speak for all of the members of the Water Amenities Committee? Where is his base of support?
Jude,
I really don't understand your persistence in asking this question. The expense of maintaining the spoil site would be no different than the expense of dredging. The way the regime idea has been presented is the WPA would pay X amount of money to the canal regime and it would be up to US to spend that money as we desire. The balance of ANY expense including spoil site maintenance would fall on the canal regime.You seem unhappy with the split or balance in the proportion of money contributed to the regime from off-canal lots vs on-canal, but I really fail to see how someone living off-canal would really care if the spoil site is maintained. Its unfair to project that cost on the rest of the plantation when its people like you and I that benefit from it.Let's assume we could do a maintenance dredge including engineering cost, in a year or two for $400,000. Without any WPA help, that would be about $5000 per lot. Over time, if the WPA kicks in the proposed percentages, that number would be considerably less. Are you really going to tell me that's not a plan you could support? It's logical, simple, fair, and most of all allows us to control our own destiny concerning dredging. As you witnessed Saturday, the community's acceptance on individual assessments is not very positive. Unless someone challenges the assessment from 2009 in court and has the wherewithal to see it through, we will never know if it's valid or not. What any of us think is completely irrelevant. I would prefer to stay out of court, which would take years and tens of thousands of dollars, and instead try to resolve this ourselves.
I think you make a valid point that the spoil site could use some annual maintenance and it is something I intend to look into. I don't know if this is something a group of volunteers could go out and do a few times a year or if we need a contractor to come in and do it. I will get with John McBride and the rest of the water amenities committee and get you an answer asap.
Adam Anderson
I replied:
Adam,
Thank you for a response to my question about the spoil site. I persisted in asking the question BECAUSE no one had an answer for me. (I have asked this question many times).
The WPA recently spent over $7,000 to maintain WPA property behind someone’s house. Who, besides the individual property owner, cared! Why should someone on Swamp Fox care what the circle on King George looks like, or Duck Pond Road? The responsibility for maintaining WPA property is the WPA’s regardless of where it is located. Deliberately failing to maintain WPA property is negligence on the part of the Board.
I do not know what happened Saturday. On Friday, an e-mail was sent from a canal resident to Carol Zieske who then forwarded it to her group. This e-mail decried ANY money from ANYONE being spent on maintaining the canals and was totally against a sub-association. The animosity and disharmony that you hope to avoid is still active and present here. The people who caused the stink over the first dredging seem to be prepared to fight a sub-association. It is interesting as to the number of people on your cohesive Board whose names appeared on the list of recipients.
Perhaps you could explain to me your complete reversal on individual assessments and your support of a sub-association. Sub-associations have been looked into at least three times that I know of—including a serious push in the 80’s by Dick Meyers group who petitioned the Board to allow the canal lot owners to form their own association. The Board, on the advice of counsel, said no due to the legal logistics. Adam, I believe that you know that you can’t force someone to join the association and therefore can’t assess them any fees. Who pays for those canal lot residents who don’t join? Do you assess the members more? If I understand correctly, it was Bob Garrison who decreed that individual assessments were out and pushed the sub -association. Meanwhile, nothing is happening, no plan is in place, and no money is being put aside. Were you at the meeting—heavily attended by the cc—where both Janine Cline and Bob Garrison said that by paying off the loan in 2013, the annual assessment for 2014 would go back down to $450! Where does that leave your plan for $40-$50/ household from the WPA for canal maintenance? The permit clock is ticking--or was that the plan.
The minutes from the 2011 Annual Meeting state that individual assessments are legal! These minutes were approved without correction. You are completely incorrect about having to wait until someone challenges the individual assessment in court to determine if it is legal or not. Until such time AS IT IS CHALLENGED IN COURT, individual assessments are legal. It was Carol Zieske and her group—including Bob Garrison and Jason Barrier—who fought the individual assessment. No one on the canals did. It was Carol et al who said that individual assessments were part of the By-laws but only for small amounts of money. No where in the By-laws does it give an amount. The sub-association works only if you get 100% participation. It is not viable and you are spinning your wheels and wasting time.
I have received several e-mails from Adam where he makes it clear that the opinions he expresses are his alone. Really?! I thought that as a Board member he should be solicitous of the opinions of the membership. The survey SHOULD have come out BEFORE Adam decided that a sub-association was the way to go. The survey itself was a joke—no deadline for returns, just a yes/no question, no place to sign, etc. I urge all canal lot owners to return their survey immediately! Is Adam operating without the support of the canal lot owners, or is Bob Garrison’s sub-association idea the way to go?
No one complains about spending WPA money to maintain WPA property UNTIL that property involves the canals. Once again, I must caution the Board about negligence and discrimination. Has anyone run the idea of negligence and its pitfalls by the attorney?
Our By-laws give the Board tremendous power. They can do anything they want until such time as they are challenged in court. To my knowledge, the individual assessments of 2009 have not been adjudicated and until they are found to be illegal in a court of law, they are LEGAL.
No one has answered me regarding the credit card fee. Frankly, it should be in the contract. The amounts spent on various committees are important. Each chair needs to know, and should be keeping track, of the amount spent versus the amount budgeted.
As I look at the October financials, I immediately had several questions:
Who is our resident manager? We are paying over $18,000 annually for one as well as an additional $25,000 for a management company?
Why was $10,000 budgeted for irrigation repair?
What are safety inspections?
Why did we budget $2200 for annual evaluations?
Our past due amounts are over $100,000 yet we spent over $89,000 on forgiveness of debt. Does someone have a clue?
It is a shame that these questions, like most of my other questions will find their way into the dead question box. This box is supported by apathy—on the part of the Board and the membership.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
WAITING FOR AN ANNOUNCEMENT
ARTICLE VII, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Section 6, Organizational Meeting, of the WPA By-Laws states, "The first meeting of each Board of Directors newly elected by the members shall be held at such a place and time as shall be fixed by the Directors and as soon following the Annual Meeting as is practicable provided a quorum is present. No further notice of the meeting shall be necessary."
It has been over two weeks since the annual meeting and I've been checking the WPA website for an announcement notifying the membership of the 2013 WPA Board Officers. So far it hasn't appeared. I am unsure whether they had the meeting and failed to notify the membership, determined somehow that the officers would remain the same, or they just haven't held the meeting. Most boards have held the organization meeting within a few days of the election.
I'm hoping that the boards silence isn't an indication that the officer positions will remain the same. While I'm interested in all of the positions, I'm particularly interested in the president. I'm hoping for a change. Originally, I was a strong supporter of Jacky Walton. When the 2011 Board was attempting to remove him as president I, along with many others gathered to attend the meetings. If you recall, we'd get there and several of the board members wouldn't enter, cancelled the meeting, and once met in the parking lot to avoid the residents watching their underhanded tactics. The issue was that the president has the privilege of naming committee chairs. Walton had named McBride as Legal Chair. Five of the board seats were held by Concerned Citizens who were in the middle of the lawsuit brought by Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas. One of the board members said , "it was all about legal." Walton wouldn't remove McBride and replace him with one of the Concerned Citizen board members. They removed Walton and made Wilson president.
The 2012 board made Walton president. He named Garrison as Legal Chair. Since then Garrison has added a resident Concerned Citizen to the committee. We can't see legal files. We can't view legal invoices. We often receive critical legal opinions verbally. Some sources say we have over $5,000 of unapproved legal expenses that no one will take issue with. None of this is good.
Consider the fact that Walton had named Barrier as Community Liaison. He rarely, I mean rarely has a report and residents have not had questions answered in months (many, many). He also named John Walton chair of communications which includes welcome committee, special events like the holiday lighting. There haven't been reports there either. 24 families have not been welcomed over a long period of time.
Based on performance, I don't know who could support Walton as president. Will your board? We'll just have to keep watching for a posting. Maybe the announcement hold up is due to the fact that the board has no confidence in who they selected, or it is slim pickings to find officer material amongst this group.
It has been over two weeks since the annual meeting and I've been checking the WPA website for an announcement notifying the membership of the 2013 WPA Board Officers. So far it hasn't appeared. I am unsure whether they had the meeting and failed to notify the membership, determined somehow that the officers would remain the same, or they just haven't held the meeting. Most boards have held the organization meeting within a few days of the election.
I'm hoping that the boards silence isn't an indication that the officer positions will remain the same. While I'm interested in all of the positions, I'm particularly interested in the president. I'm hoping for a change. Originally, I was a strong supporter of Jacky Walton. When the 2011 Board was attempting to remove him as president I, along with many others gathered to attend the meetings. If you recall, we'd get there and several of the board members wouldn't enter, cancelled the meeting, and once met in the parking lot to avoid the residents watching their underhanded tactics. The issue was that the president has the privilege of naming committee chairs. Walton had named McBride as Legal Chair. Five of the board seats were held by Concerned Citizens who were in the middle of the lawsuit brought by Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas. One of the board members said , "it was all about legal." Walton wouldn't remove McBride and replace him with one of the Concerned Citizen board members. They removed Walton and made Wilson president.
The 2012 board made Walton president. He named Garrison as Legal Chair. Since then Garrison has added a resident Concerned Citizen to the committee. We can't see legal files. We can't view legal invoices. We often receive critical legal opinions verbally. Some sources say we have over $5,000 of unapproved legal expenses that no one will take issue with. None of this is good.
Consider the fact that Walton had named Barrier as Community Liaison. He rarely, I mean rarely has a report and residents have not had questions answered in months (many, many). He also named John Walton chair of communications which includes welcome committee, special events like the holiday lighting. There haven't been reports there either. 24 families have not been welcomed over a long period of time.
Based on performance, I don't know who could support Walton as president. Will your board? We'll just have to keep watching for a posting. Maybe the announcement hold up is due to the fact that the board has no confidence in who they selected, or it is slim pickings to find officer material amongst this group.
Friday, November 30, 2012
THIS EMAIL FROM A CANAL LOT OWNER, DISTRIBUTED TO THE CONCERNED CITIZENS, BEGS THE QUESTION - WHO IS SUPPORTING THIS COHESIVE BOARD'S CANAL PLANS?
The following was written by a canal lot owner and sent to Ms.Z to be forwarded to an extensive Concerned Citizen email list (Their email addresses have been removed to protect their email accounts). It begs the question, "who is the board counting on to support the development of a sub association?" Even after the writer's three heroes sued the board they settled the suit in behalf of all those they claimed they sued in be half of, including the writer. Your board stated they were trying to make everyone happy. How are they doing? Looks like no one is supporting their ideas and they need to get back to governing in the best interests of Wedgefield Plantation Association. Those board members who like to call this mess cohesive, while following the lead of one, are shown to have no followers, need to stand up and govern, question, research, and raise their hands and vote in the best interests of our community. Those re-elected in our recent election may not have been re-elected for their performance, but their blind following of one board member. Will the board now tell us that they are in the process of calling the State to do the maintenance dredging? Back to square one and THE CLOCK IS TICKING DOWN ON THE PERMIT THE CANAL LOT OWNERS PAID OVER $160,000 FOR. Your board appears to have been delaying, dragging this ridiculous plan out for months to speed the clock and run the permit out.
It is also important to note that this email was sent to the resident member of the Legal Committee. Perhaps it went to our legal chair. I say perhaps, because some of the email addresses hide their owner's identity. I've asked repeatedly why we have members on the legal committee who were involved in sabotaging the collection of assessments, by writing letters to every resident suggesting they put their assessments in an escrow account. Is this just a misguided attempt by some on your board to deny any attempt at canal maintenance?
This survey took months. No date to return, no place for the canal lot owners to sign, no return self addressed stamped envelope, and now the writer of the email notes that the board didn't even bother to sign this half baked document.
It is also important to note that this email was sent to the resident member of the Legal Committee. Perhaps it went to our legal chair. I say perhaps, because some of the email addresses hide their owner's identity. I've asked repeatedly why we have members on the legal committee who were involved in sabotaging the collection of assessments, by writing letters to every resident suggesting they put their assessments in an escrow account. Is this just a misguided attempt by some on your board to deny any attempt at canal maintenance?
This survey took months. No date to return, no place for the canal lot owners to sign, no return self addressed stamped envelope, and now the writer of the email notes that the board didn't even bother to sign this half baked document.
From:
(Removed Name)
To:
wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com
FYI
Subject: Re: NO ONE should pay for
State's canals AGAIN......................
Hi Everyone,
SCROLL TO BELOW THIS E FOR MY PREVIOUS E AND COPY OF LETTER ON WPA STATIONERY.
This is proposed to be a by-law amendment to be put up for vote at the annual meeting, so EVERYONE will have the ability to defeat it.
Why is the Board continuing to push for ANYONE to pay for more dredging. How responsible is that! Please encourage everyone you know to send a CLEAR MESSAGE TO THE BOARD THIS TIME!
Want the State's canals dredged again? Apply for State and Federal funding as originally presented to the community before the financing blunder. (Name removed)
-----Original Message-----
From: (Removed Canal Lot Owner Name To Protect Writer's Identity)
To: (Removed Z's email address to protect their email account)
Sent: Thu, Nov 22, 2012 9:38 pm
Subject: NO ONE should pay for State's canals AGAIN......................
Hi Carol,
Please pass this E onto the members of your mailing list and anyone else, with my permission.
I received this letter, below and attached, that suggests canal owners should form their own sub-association to pay for future dredging with a one time handout from the WPA. Don't fall for this. Don't allow the creators of this unsigned letter MAKE YOU THINK THERE ARE ONLY TWO CHOICES ABOUT THESE CANALS ----ANOTHER OPTION IS NO SUB ASSOCIATION, NO FUTURE DREDGING AT OUR EXPENSE, NO PAYING THE STATE'S BILL FOR MAINTAINING THE STATE'S PROPERTY.
To even suggest that canal maintenance should be included in our by-laws as part of individual assessments would then have placed maintenance of the State's canals on our shoulders. Why was that proposed amendment even fostered by the Board? And didn't the resulting defeat of the proposed amendment send a message? Why is the Board stilll pushing for who should bear the expense of more dredging?
DIDN'T THE BOARD GET THE MESSAGE, LOUD AND CLEAR, THAT THE FIRST DREDGING AND EXPENSE WAS OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSED AND UNPOPULAR? Too bad they didn't solicit community opinions first before plunging the community in debt and then billing the residents for the Board's premature actions.
I suggest that NO ONE should be stuck with this again, and especially not JUST canal LOT owners, NOR ANY LOT OWNERS. ASK THE STATE TO PAY FOR THEIR OWN DREDGING, NOT THIS COMMUNITY, OR ANY ONE PART OF IT, AGAIN.
Carol Zieski, George Wilson and Fred Thomas fought for everyone to PROVE, IN COURT, BY THE STATE'S OWN ATTORNEY, THAT THE STATE OWNS THE CANALS. THREE PEOPLE FOUGHT TO PREVENT ANY OF US FROM PAYING FOR DREDGING AGAIN!
The FIRST DREDGING AND FINANCING FIASCO was FORCED on everyone, shoved down our throats was the best description, by the actions of two individuals without the required meeting and approval of the Board of Directors (there was no notice of meeting to some board members and there is NO RECORD of any such meeting !!) and MORE IMPORTANTLY WITHOUT FIRST LEGALLY DETERMINING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE CANALS.
What next? Golf course lot owners forming a sub-association to take over maintenance of the golf course in the event of the golf course owner's bankruptcy?? Why not? The community doesn't own the golf course either, but if people are forced to maintain State property that the community doesn't own, why not the golf course, too? Does this remind anyone how they felt when the course was in bankruptcy and bordering lot owners were extremely concerned about the future and values of their properties?
Why didn't the Board get a million dollar loan to save the golf course lot owners? Why didn't the Board do anything to maintain the golf course when it was in bankruptcy? They didn't because the community DOESN'T OWN THE GOLF COURSE, JUST AS THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T OWN THE CANALS.
I urge anyone who received the undated, unsigned letter to use good common sense and NOT SUPPORT ANY FURTHER EFFORTS TO FORCE ANYONE IN THIS COMMUNITY TO PAY THE STATE'S BILLS. NO CANAL SUB-ASSOCIATION, NO OTHER SUB-ASSOCIATIONS !!(Removed Canal Lot Owner's Name and email address)
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
THE CANAL LOT SURVEY
Our canal lot survey arrived today. I've provided a copy for those of you who live off the canals (see below).
FIRST PARAGRAPH: "How do we please everyone?" Pleasing everyone, or those your board identifies as "their everyone", is not their responsibility. The board is responsible for serving in the best interests of Wedgefield Plantation Association, according to our covenants and by-laws. "The water amenities committee has come up with a concept that will come as close to pleasing everyone as we will get." Why a new concept? They didn't say it was new but why drag this into the mix, except to delay? Anyone who is willing to go back through the WPA achieves will note that the formation of a sub association has been considered several times. Why not go back to the governing documents and to Individual Assessment? After all the havoc, the truth resides is the 2011 Annual Meeting Minutes that were just approved. Item # 6, page 3, "The $5,000 assessment was confirmed as a legal assessment and collection of these past due assessments continue." It was only the Concerned Citizens who drove the lawsuits, disputed it's use for their own purpose, and then settled the lawsuit. The final order states, "The parties, other than the State, also advised the Court that the claims of the Plaintiffs, as members of and on behalf of Wedgefield Plantation Association against the Board of Directors of the Wedgefield Plantation Association, Karl Gettman, Jude Davis, Madeline Claveloux, Larry McMillin, Bob Arendt, Johnny Huggins, Brenda Martin, Ruth Reames and Scott Marlow, or their heirs, have either been previously dismissed or were being dismissed at this hearing..." The entire final order is attached to the minutes because it was read at the 2011 Annual Meeting. As far as "members of and on behalf of Wedgefield Plantation Association", when did they ask you if you wanted to sue the board as an entity, and as individuals? As to your board trying to please everyone. Who is everyone? The plaintiffs never had a majority, and certainly not near everyone. As one of them was deposed they stated they sued in behalf of the 242 people who signed the petition. Even that doesn't count because after the lawsuit dragged on many of those people stated they didn't realize what the lawsuit entailed. They thought the plaintiffs were seeking a declaratory judgement.
Your board hasn't even surveyed you and waited for the canal lot owners responses. They claim this is "as close to pleasing everyone as we can get." RUMOR has it that the board finally got the survey out to silence the Concerned Citizens. It was stated by some on the Water Amenities Committee that the entire committee, minus one, thought this was a good idea. Now individual committee members are stating that THEY didn't think it was a good idea. I was a member of the canal sub committee and this idea didn't get 15 minutes of our time, and was tabled at our first meeting. I was present at the meeting with the legal committee, when Individual Assessment was quickly moved aside. Garrison wanted this. Garrison also said, "it's not going to happen that way again" (Individual Assessment). Is he king of the board? The others are acting that way.
NUMBER 1 - 3:
This is the survey they kept us waiting months for? Please! When the canal sub committee met with the legal committee, they knew there would not be 100% participation. We discussed it during the meeting. Now, they tell us we need 100% participation by the canal lot owners. This requirement has been the problem anytime this has been considered. Read the records.
We need another by-law amendment to make it work and "the WPA would commit a set amount of money or a percentage of its yearly budget, probably somewhere in the $40-$50 per lot range, to our new regime. The WPA would then be relieved of any financial obligation to the canal lot owners for canal maintenance." Where did they get that figure? Out of the air!
What if we committed ourselves to this? Please realize there isn't any permanance to their promises. By-laws can be amended and there we would be standing alone. The association would be free and clear of responsibility and running their drainage system into our canals, causing more silting than nature ever could, in some areas.
"We would still be a part of the WPA much like the condo regimes already in place within Wedgefield." Canal lot owners have been the step children of this association. Additionally, we aren't anything like the condo residents. We bought our property under one association. The condo residents bought theirs under two. Personally, I will not intentionally put my property under the power of another ruling body - never.
Where did they mention ANYTHING about the spoil site? That is a major key to the dredging. Without it the figures to dredge and haul away are six to seven times more, and that is on OLD research. The WPA owns the spoil site. Jude Davis asked the board what they were doing about maintaining the spoil site at the annual meeting. She didn't get any answers. Was the question too hard? I fear the answer is that they have done NOTHING. WPA owns it. It is related to those "canal people" and it gets nothing. Yet, if you attend board meetings you will note that your board spent approximately $9,000 to repair a bulkhead, fill a cave in, and grass over it. It was one of the lots that the association owns the frontage on the canal that is directly connects to a private lot owner. They are going to sign it over to the lot owner at no cost. In fact, they paid the lot owner, who owns a business to do some of the work. Where was their contract with Great Lawns? The lot owner has not even paid their $5,000 assessment. The key words are they did it because they own it. They own the spoil site too!
"At this point the water amenities committee needs your input. We would like to know your feelings about such a proposal..." Really?? When? Because this is so important and they have been stalling long enough? They didn't even bother to put a return by date on it. Maybe you can answer it when spring arrives. Please don't delay any more. Be sure and write your questions and your feelings about this effort - or lack of. They didn't even bother to ensure that each and everyone of us got it at the same time. They claim 19, mine included, were held because they were out of stamps. I'm not so sure it was 19. Regardless, we weren't as important as less than half a dollar each, and a little effort, if that was the case.
A SUGGESTION & AN OFFER TO THE BOARD
I am attaching this article to my survey. No reason to do duplicate work.
BOARD: I'd like to suggest that you contact every canal lot owner and first make sure they got the survey. Second please provide them with a reasonable return date.
OFFER: Board I feel it is important that we get past this exercise as soon as possible. I also think that the responses from the canal lot owners should be tallied and every comment made available to any resident who wants to see it. My conviction is so strong that I am willing to sign a Confidentiality Agreement with a notation that it applies to this project only and remove resident names and compile every comment and the count, into one document. Please advise me as to whether you are willing to do that, in writing.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
STAFF SECRETARY SENDS LETTER TO THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER REGARDING CANAL SURVEY
Staff Secretary Kathy sent the following to The Wedgefield Examiner. She takes responsibility for the survey not being mailed to my household. I like Kathy. I interviewed and hired her. She has been on staff since early 2009 and worked for and with numerous board members. She has had to balance working in a hostile take over (after the recall), disappearing records, "let the residents see the records - to no they can't", charge some residents for copies - to no copies, and was in the center of the facts as to whether Wilson asked her to erase part of an official meeting tape. In the end, when pushed by questions, Wilson admitted he had. Not before another current board member told his committee a bold faced lie about the circumstances. I don't trust most of this board.
We have sitting board members who have no problem jabbing at those who frequently ask questions and calling them trouble makers. I'm viewed as one of them. Some of them have a problem with residents who ask informed questions and refuse to take them at their word. I do attend meetings, listen to the tapes, review documents, etc. I am an informed resident. For those who are skeptical about my feelings, I'd ask them to go to the meeting recordings for 2009 and 2010. Go to the correspondence file and review the same years. The residents with constant questions, comments, and those who critized the board then, are the ones they now call "friends" and "so helpful".
This was the canal sub committee's survey. Did Anderson supervise the process? Did he verify that it had been sent? Doesn't look that way.
Again, I like Kathy, but I question her sending her explanation to the dreaded, no one reads it, Wedgefield Examiner. I question her reprimanding a resident in this manner. I question why those on the board did not have the good judgement to first oversee the project, or answer a resident with the facts themselves. That would have been professionalism.
Do I believe it happened the way it is stated in the letter? I'm not sure, but either way our staff secretary is the scape goat because your board didn't have the professionalism or the guts to handle it.
HERE IS HER LETTER:
We have sitting board members who have no problem jabbing at those who frequently ask questions and calling them trouble makers. I'm viewed as one of them. Some of them have a problem with residents who ask informed questions and refuse to take them at their word. I do attend meetings, listen to the tapes, review documents, etc. I am an informed resident. For those who are skeptical about my feelings, I'd ask them to go to the meeting recordings for 2009 and 2010. Go to the correspondence file and review the same years. The residents with constant questions, comments, and those who critized the board then, are the ones they now call "friends" and "so helpful".
This was the canal sub committee's survey. Did Anderson supervise the process? Did he verify that it had been sent? Doesn't look that way.
Again, I like Kathy, but I question her sending her explanation to the dreaded, no one reads it, Wedgefield Examiner. I question her reprimanding a resident in this manner. I question why those on the board did not have the good judgement to first oversee the project, or answer a resident with the facts themselves. That would have been professionalism.
Do I believe it happened the way it is stated in the letter? I'm not sure, but either way our staff secretary is the scape goat because your board didn't have the professionalism or the guts to handle it.
HERE IS HER LETTER:
Sunday, November 25, 2012
JUDE DAVIS - "WHAT AM I CHOPPED LIVER?"
Dear Examiner,
When we found out that others along the canal had received their survey and
we hadn’t, Mike asked,”What are we, chopped liver?” This was all before I
called you and found out you had been ‘inadvertently’ left out too. Oh, by the
way, Adam must think that you provide mail service as I have not received an
e-mail from him. Considering some of the e-mails that I have received from Mr.
Anderson, I know that he has my address! It is my opinion that this was a
deliberate snub. I’m going to the office on Monday to get a copy of the survey
and I want answers as to why, once again, I was treated differently. Watch,
Kathy will take the blame and I won’t believe it for a minute. Adam needs to
provide both of us with the truth.
Speaking as a mathematician with experience in statistics, a survey of a
select group of people is flawed when it deliberately leaves members of the
group out. Did this survey leave anyone else out? I am aware of the fact that
I have stated publically that I could not, and would not, consider joining a
sub-association until such time as I had answers to a few questions. I asked a
very pertinent question at the annual meeting--Who is responsible for
the spoil site?-- and received shrugged shoulders from Adam, and the
statement from Bob Garrison that the sub-association is just conceptual and no
one has answers to the questions that I keep raising. Really? The clock is
ticking on the permit. I have put the WPA on notice that their failure to
consider the spoil site for annual maintenance is, in my opinion, deliberate
negligence . Consider the money spent behind someone’s house—over $7000-- to
‘preserve WPA property.’ I was told by Al DeMarchi that the WPA had a
“responsibility’ to maintain WPA property. The spoil site is WPA property.
Where’s the maintenance, Al?
I was recently asked by Jacky Walton to co-chair the holiday decorating and
a tree lighting party similar to the one the Wedgefield Civic Group did in
2010. When I respectfully declined, he asked why. I was frank and told him
that he, as president, has allowed members of the Board to continue to send me
inappropriate e-mails, make snarky comments in public—including Al’s at the
annual meeting--, ignore legitimate questions, etc. I also reminded him that we
have not received an accurate financial statement in months and told him that I
can’t figure out where all of the money went! He thought that we should all get
over ‘this’ and move forward. I suggested that, as president, he insist that
his Board make the first step. I also told him that I am waiting for answers to
questions that I asked months ago. I told him that I have received personal
e-mails from Al DeMarchi and Adam Anderson. I asked if I was to take these
responses, incomplete as they were, as the official Board answers. HE TOLD ME
NO! I received, through Edmund on WPA letterhead, a response from John McBride
as the official Board answer to one of my questions. I have also informed
Edmund that I am STILL waiting for official answers.
I believe that this ‘cohesive’ Board does not answer my questions
because they know that they are legitimate and they are embarrassed not to have
thought of them first! Their continued discrimination just makes me
want to find out what they are hiding. All members of the WPA are entitled to
truthful answers.
Jude
Saturday, November 24, 2012
UPDTED 5:00 PM- NOV.24: SOMEONE MOVED TWO LOTS OFF THE CANALS - IT IS THE ONLY CONCLUSION I CAN COME TO
UPDATE: IN RED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE
After months of delays, in fact lack of action, your board stated that the survey to canal lot owners regarding the formation of a sub association, would be sent shortly after the annual meeting. I've been watching for ours. Today, I was informed that the board was true to their word and sent out the surveys. Some of the canal lot owners have not only received them, but have filled them out and returned them to the board.
I bought a home on the canals, paid my canal individual $5,000 assessment on time, and as I looked out this morning my home was still sitting along side the canal. I didn't receive a survey. Jude Davis didn't receive a survey either! PLEASE NOTE: The statements that follow are mine. They don't represent the opinions of Jude Davis. She speaks for herself. She has not reviewed the article.
When did I lose my rights as a resident here? I find it of no small coincidence that neither my household, nor the Davis household received a survey. This board appears to have taken it upon themselves to royally discriminate against those who speak out, ask questions, etc. Maybe they feel it is their right because they THINK they know how I will respond. Hope not. No one on that board has a right to assume anything. They may not remove my opportunity to put my response to their survey in writing! I want my response to be entered into the record. This isn't a mere oversight! It does speak to the heavy handedness of most of these board members! It comes down to different strokes for different folks. They'll decide my right to have documented input. Could you be next? You bet. Speak out, ask questions, and have opinions different than this "cohesive board" and you may find them trying to remove some of your rights!
I'd suggest that the board email the survey first thing on Monday WITH A CONCRETE ANSWER AS TO WHY I WAS EXCLUDED.
UPDATE:
I received the following from board member Anderson:
Madeline and Jude,
After months of delays, in fact lack of action, your board stated that the survey to canal lot owners regarding the formation of a sub association, would be sent shortly after the annual meeting. I've been watching for ours. Today, I was informed that the board was true to their word and sent out the surveys. Some of the canal lot owners have not only received them, but have filled them out and returned them to the board.
I bought a home on the canals, paid my canal individual $5,000 assessment on time, and as I looked out this morning my home was still sitting along side the canal. I didn't receive a survey. Jude Davis didn't receive a survey either! PLEASE NOTE: The statements that follow are mine. They don't represent the opinions of Jude Davis. She speaks for herself. She has not reviewed the article.
When did I lose my rights as a resident here? I find it of no small coincidence that neither my household, nor the Davis household received a survey. This board appears to have taken it upon themselves to royally discriminate against those who speak out, ask questions, etc. Maybe they feel it is their right because they THINK they know how I will respond. Hope not. No one on that board has a right to assume anything. They may not remove my opportunity to put my response to their survey in writing! I want my response to be entered into the record. This isn't a mere oversight! It does speak to the heavy handedness of most of these board members! It comes down to different strokes for different folks. They'll decide my right to have documented input. Could you be next? You bet. Speak out, ask questions, and have opinions different than this "cohesive board" and you may find them trying to remove some of your rights!
I'd suggest that the board email the survey first thing on Monday WITH A CONCRETE ANSWER AS TO WHY I WAS EXCLUDED.
UPDATE:
I received the following from board member Anderson:
Madeline and Jude,
It was just pointed out to me that neither of you got a canal survey. My apologies. I don't know how that happened but I will get to the bottom of it.Please find attached a copy of the survey. The only difference between this one and the one mailed out was the one mailed out has the Wedgefield letterhead on it. I in no way would excluded anyone and in fact would especially like to read your comments and input .I simply forwarded the survey to Kathy and asked her to mail one to every canal lot owner. If you would prefer the original survey with the letterhead on it let me know and I will personally see that you get it.
Adam Anderson
I thank Anderson for writing. Up until recently I found Anderson to be what most of us would call honest, open, and above board. I have watched him raise his hand, vote with this "cohesive board" at the expense of good judgement. If Anderson doesn't know how this happened it is time he opens his eyes and begins to question certain members of this "cohesive board". Someone decided that the Claveloux & Davis households weren't worth the effort and time their survey was printed on. I want to know who did this and why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)