Friday, August 31, 2012
DUNCAN, ONE OF WEDGEFIELD'S TOP DOGS ENDORSES TACO WIJTHOFF FOR WPA BOARD
Duncan, looks as though he can't believe our good fortune. He says, "forget about how cute, brainy, or small I am. I have a big opinion to announce. I support Taco Wijthoff for WPA Board. By the way, I've been talking to buddy Brady. I'm sure he'll have an announcement soon. It's about time the little guy gets first press coverage. Remember folks, you heard it here first and you heard it from Duncan. Now get on the band wagon and support Taco Wijthoff!"
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER'S CONCERNS HAVE BEEN VALIDATED AND ARE GROWING
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
Please take time to read the following article, "Resident Writes The Board regarding "Lessons Learned, Facts, Procedures, Policy Ignored, The Road Debacle". The Wedgefield Examiner will express an opinion under separate title, here. The following words are mine.
Some times information collides - work done separately, without knowledge of what another party is doing, and yet brings substance to a point. This is the case today.
As a resident who attends Board meetings, reviews documents, asks questions, etc., I have had an overwhelming concern about how our Board members are voting. As I reviewed Wheeler's documents, went back to tapes of the meetings, and paper work - or lack there of, I felt trapped. Why trapped?
We have four of the Board members, sitting at our current Board table who voted for this mess. They are Jacky Walton, McMillin, Garrison, and Barrier. Read the article. Wheeler tried to talk to them and present information. Listen to the board meeting tapes. McBride tried to talk to them at the Board table. They wouldn't listen to even elementary reason.
This year the four seem to have influence over the 2012 elected Board members -Cline and DeMarchi and those that were appointed - John Walton and Adam Anderson. Meeting after meeting, when votes are taken who do they ignore? McBride. I'm not saying McBride has the be all and end all answers. What I am saying is that he investigates. He asks questions that are within the realm of reason to the subject at hand and he is ignored. If you attend meetings it is often painful to watch.
My fear becomes my worst governance nightmare. It will be time to vote soon. Go to the tapes of the meetings and listen for yourself. You can't count on the minutes because they appear to be sanitized. The discussion surrounding a vote is often left out. Often they don't reflect who voted yea or nay.
You'll have to vote soon. The candidates are DeMarchi, John Walton, Adam Anderson, and Taco Wijthoff. Three of the candidates are voting with the crowd rather than independents representing good sound governance. What will you do? I have to think about it.
Please take time to read the following article, "Resident Writes The Board regarding "Lessons Learned, Facts, Procedures, Policy Ignored, The Road Debacle". The Wedgefield Examiner will express an opinion under separate title, here. The following words are mine.
Some times information collides - work done separately, without knowledge of what another party is doing, and yet brings substance to a point. This is the case today.
As a resident who attends Board meetings, reviews documents, asks questions, etc., I have had an overwhelming concern about how our Board members are voting. As I reviewed Wheeler's documents, went back to tapes of the meetings, and paper work - or lack there of, I felt trapped. Why trapped?
We have four of the Board members, sitting at our current Board table who voted for this mess. They are Jacky Walton, McMillin, Garrison, and Barrier. Read the article. Wheeler tried to talk to them and present information. Listen to the board meeting tapes. McBride tried to talk to them at the Board table. They wouldn't listen to even elementary reason.
This year the four seem to have influence over the 2012 elected Board members -Cline and DeMarchi and those that were appointed - John Walton and Adam Anderson. Meeting after meeting, when votes are taken who do they ignore? McBride. I'm not saying McBride has the be all and end all answers. What I am saying is that he investigates. He asks questions that are within the realm of reason to the subject at hand and he is ignored. If you attend meetings it is often painful to watch.
My fear becomes my worst governance nightmare. It will be time to vote soon. Go to the tapes of the meetings and listen for yourself. You can't count on the minutes because they appear to be sanitized. The discussion surrounding a vote is often left out. Often they don't reflect who voted yea or nay.
You'll have to vote soon. The candidates are DeMarchi, John Walton, Adam Anderson, and Taco Wijthoff. Three of the candidates are voting with the crowd rather than independents representing good sound governance. What will you do? I have to think about it.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
RESIDENT WRITES THE BOARD ABOUT "Lessons Learned, Facts, Procedures, Policy Ignored, The Road Debacle"
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
Resident R. V. Wheeler writes the Board. His letter to the Board follows. The letter mentions attachments that may be of value to the Board. In consideration of space I've provided his letter and only one of the attachments - a letter from the State detailing resolution of a complaint about the vendor who your 2011 Board voted, not once, but twice, to perform services in Wedgefield. REMINDER: The comments in "blue" are mine. Four pages are provided.
Resident R. V. Wheeler writes the Board. His letter to the Board follows. The letter mentions attachments that may be of value to the Board. In consideration of space I've provided his letter and only one of the attachments - a letter from the State detailing resolution of a complaint about the vendor who your 2011 Board voted, not once, but twice, to perform services in Wedgefield. REMINDER: The comments in "blue" are mine. Four pages are provided.
PAGE ONE
PAGE TWO
PAGE THREE
PAGE FOUR
Sunday, August 26, 2012
LETTER TO THE BOARD REGARDING INFORMATION CONCERNING THE POTENTIAL OF A CANAL SUB ASSOCIATION
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
HERE IT IS:
August 25, 2012
TO: WPA Board
ATTN: John Mc Bride, Water Amenities Chair
Adam Anderson, Canal Sub Chair
Bob Garrison, Legal Chair
FROM: Madeline Y. Claveloux
RE: Canal Option Presented at the August 21st WPA Board Meeting
CC: Edmund La France, The Wedgefield Examiner
NOTE: Please place a copy in the correspondence file and distribute to the Board
Gentleman,
I was present at the August 21, 2012 Board Meeting and heard Canal Sub Chair, Anderson’s report. As I listened, I expected there to be one more detail. What appeared to be missing was a legal opinion from the Board Attorney of Record, regarding the possible formation of a sub association for the canal lot owners. The option was not presented during Legal Chair, Garrison’s report. Why?
The Board passed a motion almost three months ago to seek a legal opinion regarding a undisclosed (at the time) canal option. I also attended the first joint meeting of the Canal Sub Committee and the Legal Committee. During that meeting Garrison stated that he would make a motion to seek a legal opinion on the potential formation of a sub association. The motion passed and we, the residents, have been waiting for the Board to disclose the canal option and related legal opinion. Why just half of the report?
Rumor has it that there is no written opinion. Call me skeptical, but it causes me to ask whether a verbal opinion was presented at the last meeting of the Canal and Legal committees? If not, why not? If so, please provide your understanding of the verbal opinion, in writing. I believe I deserve an answer.
Thank you. I look forward to your response
HERE IT IS:
August 25, 2012
TO: WPA Board
ATTN: John Mc Bride, Water Amenities Chair
Adam Anderson, Canal Sub Chair
Bob Garrison, Legal Chair
FROM: Madeline Y. Claveloux
RE: Canal Option Presented at the August 21st WPA Board Meeting
CC: Edmund La France, The Wedgefield Examiner
NOTE: Please place a copy in the correspondence file and distribute to the Board
Gentleman,
I was present at the August 21, 2012 Board Meeting and heard Canal Sub Chair, Anderson’s report. As I listened, I expected there to be one more detail. What appeared to be missing was a legal opinion from the Board Attorney of Record, regarding the possible formation of a sub association for the canal lot owners. The option was not presented during Legal Chair, Garrison’s report. Why?
The Board passed a motion almost three months ago to seek a legal opinion regarding a undisclosed (at the time) canal option. I also attended the first joint meeting of the Canal Sub Committee and the Legal Committee. During that meeting Garrison stated that he would make a motion to seek a legal opinion on the potential formation of a sub association. The motion passed and we, the residents, have been waiting for the Board to disclose the canal option and related legal opinion. Why just half of the report?
Rumor has it that there is no written opinion. Call me skeptical, but it causes me to ask whether a verbal opinion was presented at the last meeting of the Canal and Legal committees? If not, why not? If so, please provide your understanding of the verbal opinion, in writing. I believe I deserve an answer.
Thank you. I look forward to your response
Saturday, August 25, 2012
"IT'S COMPLICATED"
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
It's Complicated", was a recent romantic comedy. Trust me, there is no romance or comedy, in this subject. Much of life can be termed as "it's complicated" - whether good or bad. "It's complicated", when we discuss the WPA Board. In fact, it might better be termed"the good, the bad, and the ugly". Don't get your dander up and believe the subject pertains to the current Board, only. The thought came to mind as I listened to the Legal Report during the August 21st Board meeting. Before we get into the subject, start with a few premises, in fact, facts.
1)Residents elect the Board of Directors.
2)The Board of Directors elect the officers of the Board, including the president.
3)The president of the Board has the privilege of naming committee chairs.
4)No matter what officer or chair position a board member holds, they each have the power of their individual vote at the Board table - equal voting power.
5)Each Board member should be voting in consideration of whether a motion meets the standard of our governing documents, and is in the best interests of the association. In the purest sense, after consideration of the governing documents, having considered good business practice, the Board member should vote his/her conscience. No deals, no hidden agenda, it comes down to an independent vote of what is in the best interests of the association.
What brought all of this up? During Garrison's Legal Report we were brought up to date on the curb and fence violation on lot 107. It has taken a year and a half. We hired a lawyer. We have gone to court, thought there was a final ruling, and now there is a hold, and it appears the case is in mediation. During the report varying Board Members had questions. President Walton added comments, stating to my understanding, that the judge said the equivalent of, "there is fault on both sides". The homeowner didn't do a number of things - in fact blew off ARC and told them to sue him. ARC failed to move in appropriate time. In fact prior to trial the homeowner had someone come through and measure other similar violations in the association. Now, the Board is faced with a decision to mediate away the fines, give variance to the too tall fence, and get the curb removed by the owner, because it is a safety hazard. The question became, do we mediate and accept what is on the table now, or continue to fight in another court? The finance report this month indicates legal expenses of over $3,000 on this case. Some on the Board stated if we didn't proceed legally, our ARC rules meant nothing. Others stated that if we mediated and settled we wouldn't be spending untold additional funds over what could be a very extended time period and not end any better than what it is today. In the end the Board voted to try and mediate it to the terms mentioned above. PLEASE LISTEN TO THE LEGAL REPORT FROM THE TAPE OF THE MEETING AT THE WEDGEFIELD TIMES. I have tried to detail what I thought I heard occurred honestly.
At the end of the meeting a respected resident commented that he felt the Board had made a mistake in not following through to adherence to the ARC rules. I understood his point.
After the meeting I talked to a couple of Board Members who I don't chose to name at this point. I had gone to the Board table to tell those seated that I thought that the Board had made the best decision they could, given the circumstances. I don't like the fact that we are letting a resident ignore our ARC rules, any more than the resident who spoke at the end of the meeting. Last year's (2011) ARC Chair's name came up - Huggins. To make the point, a brief review of the Board, the president, the officers and the chair.
The 2011 Board Members were: Jacky Walton, John McBride, Larry McMillin, Jackie Walters, Jason Barrier, Fred Thomas, George Wilson, Johnny Huggins, and Bob Garrison. In January 2011, The Board elected Jacky Walton president. He remained president until June 2011. We won't spend a lot of time reviewing the harsh history of at least three executive board meetings, where Barrier, Thomas, Wilson, Huggins, Walters tried to meet to remove Walton as president because they didn't want McBride, as Legal Chair (appointed by Walton). In fact Huggins eventually stated publicly that it was "all about legal" At that time I worked along with other interested residents, to gather residents to attend the executive meetings. Attorney Moran had told the Board they should be open. When the public came, those members trying to remove Walton argued with residents in the parking lot. They wouldn't conduct their business in public at the board table. Based on what I've seen of Jacky Walton's voting record, I would not work in this defense again.
The Concerned Citizen majority board made Wilson president, McMillin treasurer, Thomas vice president, and Huggins secretary. Wilson then appointed Huggins chair of legal, roads, and ARC. So our first 3 premises hold, and are allowed under the governing documents. Then resident Al De Marchi was a member of ARC and had been for some time. Jacky Walton was on ARC.
A little history about Huggins and DeMarchi. I was on the Board in 2009 with Huggins. Don't get your violins out but I was in the office 3-4 days a week. I had the opportunity to observe Huggins and DeMarchi at work. De Marchi and I often have a difference of opinion, not on his role in ARC. I observed DeMarchi trying to update the ARC manual, visiting the office regularly to check files, get up dates regarding what was happening on a request (project) etc. I can not begin to tell you how many times he was upset that a project had begun and the files either had nothing more than a scribbled note, a hand drawing relating to nothing, or at times, no file at all. DeMarchi would be upset, leaving messages for Huggins, trying to track him down, etc. Huggins would state he wanted to fire DeMarchi from the committee, and eventually did. It could appear that DeMarchi was fired for his competence. You be the judge.
Back to the subject. Huggins was inefficient in his many roles, but under Wilson, and the majority Board, he just kept getting promoted, in what appeared to be control, rather than service to our community.
As Road Chair with Huggins, we had the $29,000 debacle. Read the minutes for yourself, in the article titled, "What A Difference A Year Can Make! It Depends Who Is Speaking As To Whether Your Board Will Take Appropriate Action, Or Not". The following Board Members exercised their individual voting power for a second contract to an unlicensed, uninsured, vendor, who hadn't appeared in months. There was no first contract. Who voted to do it? Wilson, Thomas, Huggins, Barrier, Walters, Garrison, Mc Millin, Walton (Jacky) voted to do it. These members failed all of us as residents. Failed to use their vote, whether heard or unheard (made a difference in the out come), failed to represent you. McMillin insisted he'd save the day by writing the contract for the second award. In the end he bended to almost the position of "no contract". The document he created and signed had none of the basics - no total contract amount - $9,000, thereby avoiding the question as to why they wrote a $4,000 advance.
Take a look at legal. During 2011 there were many legal issues. Legal Chair Huggins, had declared months before that "it was all about legal". The Concerned Citizen majority board had fired their hand picked attorney - Moran. Why? It may be termed speculation, but review of minutes and files reveal that the final straw was Moran's positive opinion regarding the 2011 Recall Petitioners, who had petitioned for a recall under the SC State Law. The same laws the Concerned Citizens used to remove Davis and Gettmann in 2010. Huggins & Wilson went to attorney Moody for a second opinion, without board approval. Later, they took non board or committee member, Zieske to Moody. We paid, according to Zieske herself, for her to discuss the legal climate in the plantation. Several unapproved expenses appeared on the legal invoices. Finally in late 2011 the Board visited Moody. Mc Bride took notes and asked that they be included in the legal report in the minutes for December.
Now we are at the point that we have a new board. These discussions take place at the January 2012 Board meeting. The 2012 Board are Walton, Garrison, Cline, McMillin, Huggins, Walters, McBride, Barrier, and DeMarchi. Your board elects Walton president, Garrison vice president, Cline treasurer, and DeMarchi secretary. Walton appoints Garrsion as legal chair. Your Board voted against McBride's request to include the document and allowed the paid unauthorized legal expenses to stand Why? MC BRIDE'S REPORT IS PUBLISHED AT THE END OF THIS ARTICLE.
Where is President Walton in all of this? How short is his memory? Garrison is on record in 2010 Board Minutes and recordings, as being one of the 2010 board members who went after Reames and Wijthoff claiming they had misappropriated funds regarding a $7,500 check to Attorney Fulton. They were even threatened with prison terms. Please go to The Wedgefield Times, article # 22 , "Ruth & Yvette's Dilemma" (hit "here" on the front page). The article contains transcription of a Board Meeting tape, a quote from attorney Moran to "cease any further allegations of criminal wrong doing". Next go to the WPA website and read the minutes from the September 21, 2010 minutes. After two months of terror for these women, I spoke, presented documents, and they never brought it up again. Their malicious moves came as a surprise to everyone because after the recall of 2010 a vote was taken to hire attorney Moran, without the complete involvement of the Board. Thomas was legal chair during that time. There is an email on file where Thomas writes Moran and says, the equivalent of we are thinking of making Wijthoff president. That is how little they were looking out for good governance. There was a vendetta at play.
Remember the song, "What's It All About Alfie"? Hope I spelled Alfie correctly, but let's move on. Our song should not be "What's It All About Cohesion"? I don't want to return to a president who slugs a resident, a board who allows video taping of certain residents for the private use of the president, a board who regularly allows a certain section of the audience to act out and calls the police on other, a board who says we don't need security at the meetings but hires their own security when they are about to take a contentious vote, etc. I want board members who use the power of their one vote to put objections on record, to vote with our governing documents, to treat and answer all of us fairly, and represent all of us. Go back and look at the premises. The Board is failing to follow premise 5. We've added some new members due to resignations. They are Anderson and John Walton. We'll look at their voting records in another article. Today, my feeling is that they also want to sing, "we want cohesion". I want each and every board member to vote in the best interests of the community. Some might say that the community is served with cohesion. I say, you can't build a strong community ignoring our governing documents, ignoring good business judgement, and building on the promises of other board members who have no proven track record of doing what is in the best interest of the community.
HERE IS MC BRIDE'S REPORT:
It's Complicated", was a recent romantic comedy. Trust me, there is no romance or comedy, in this subject. Much of life can be termed as "it's complicated" - whether good or bad. "It's complicated", when we discuss the WPA Board. In fact, it might better be termed"the good, the bad, and the ugly". Don't get your dander up and believe the subject pertains to the current Board, only. The thought came to mind as I listened to the Legal Report during the August 21st Board meeting. Before we get into the subject, start with a few premises, in fact, facts.
1)Residents elect the Board of Directors.
2)The Board of Directors elect the officers of the Board, including the president.
3)The president of the Board has the privilege of naming committee chairs.
4)No matter what officer or chair position a board member holds, they each have the power of their individual vote at the Board table - equal voting power.
5)Each Board member should be voting in consideration of whether a motion meets the standard of our governing documents, and is in the best interests of the association. In the purest sense, after consideration of the governing documents, having considered good business practice, the Board member should vote his/her conscience. No deals, no hidden agenda, it comes down to an independent vote of what is in the best interests of the association.
What brought all of this up? During Garrison's Legal Report we were brought up to date on the curb and fence violation on lot 107. It has taken a year and a half. We hired a lawyer. We have gone to court, thought there was a final ruling, and now there is a hold, and it appears the case is in mediation. During the report varying Board Members had questions. President Walton added comments, stating to my understanding, that the judge said the equivalent of, "there is fault on both sides". The homeowner didn't do a number of things - in fact blew off ARC and told them to sue him. ARC failed to move in appropriate time. In fact prior to trial the homeowner had someone come through and measure other similar violations in the association. Now, the Board is faced with a decision to mediate away the fines, give variance to the too tall fence, and get the curb removed by the owner, because it is a safety hazard. The question became, do we mediate and accept what is on the table now, or continue to fight in another court? The finance report this month indicates legal expenses of over $3,000 on this case. Some on the Board stated if we didn't proceed legally, our ARC rules meant nothing. Others stated that if we mediated and settled we wouldn't be spending untold additional funds over what could be a very extended time period and not end any better than what it is today. In the end the Board voted to try and mediate it to the terms mentioned above. PLEASE LISTEN TO THE LEGAL REPORT FROM THE TAPE OF THE MEETING AT THE WEDGEFIELD TIMES. I have tried to detail what I thought I heard occurred honestly.
At the end of the meeting a respected resident commented that he felt the Board had made a mistake in not following through to adherence to the ARC rules. I understood his point.
After the meeting I talked to a couple of Board Members who I don't chose to name at this point. I had gone to the Board table to tell those seated that I thought that the Board had made the best decision they could, given the circumstances. I don't like the fact that we are letting a resident ignore our ARC rules, any more than the resident who spoke at the end of the meeting. Last year's (2011) ARC Chair's name came up - Huggins. To make the point, a brief review of the Board, the president, the officers and the chair.
The 2011 Board Members were: Jacky Walton, John McBride, Larry McMillin, Jackie Walters, Jason Barrier, Fred Thomas, George Wilson, Johnny Huggins, and Bob Garrison. In January 2011, The Board elected Jacky Walton president. He remained president until June 2011. We won't spend a lot of time reviewing the harsh history of at least three executive board meetings, where Barrier, Thomas, Wilson, Huggins, Walters tried to meet to remove Walton as president because they didn't want McBride, as Legal Chair (appointed by Walton). In fact Huggins eventually stated publicly that it was "all about legal" At that time I worked along with other interested residents, to gather residents to attend the executive meetings. Attorney Moran had told the Board they should be open. When the public came, those members trying to remove Walton argued with residents in the parking lot. They wouldn't conduct their business in public at the board table. Based on what I've seen of Jacky Walton's voting record, I would not work in this defense again.
The Concerned Citizen majority board made Wilson president, McMillin treasurer, Thomas vice president, and Huggins secretary. Wilson then appointed Huggins chair of legal, roads, and ARC. So our first 3 premises hold, and are allowed under the governing documents. Then resident Al De Marchi was a member of ARC and had been for some time. Jacky Walton was on ARC.
A little history about Huggins and DeMarchi. I was on the Board in 2009 with Huggins. Don't get your violins out but I was in the office 3-4 days a week. I had the opportunity to observe Huggins and DeMarchi at work. De Marchi and I often have a difference of opinion, not on his role in ARC. I observed DeMarchi trying to update the ARC manual, visiting the office regularly to check files, get up dates regarding what was happening on a request (project) etc. I can not begin to tell you how many times he was upset that a project had begun and the files either had nothing more than a scribbled note, a hand drawing relating to nothing, or at times, no file at all. DeMarchi would be upset, leaving messages for Huggins, trying to track him down, etc. Huggins would state he wanted to fire DeMarchi from the committee, and eventually did. It could appear that DeMarchi was fired for his competence. You be the judge.
Back to the subject. Huggins was inefficient in his many roles, but under Wilson, and the majority Board, he just kept getting promoted, in what appeared to be control, rather than service to our community.
As Road Chair with Huggins, we had the $29,000 debacle. Read the minutes for yourself, in the article titled, "What A Difference A Year Can Make! It Depends Who Is Speaking As To Whether Your Board Will Take Appropriate Action, Or Not". The following Board Members exercised their individual voting power for a second contract to an unlicensed, uninsured, vendor, who hadn't appeared in months. There was no first contract. Who voted to do it? Wilson, Thomas, Huggins, Barrier, Walters, Garrison, Mc Millin, Walton (Jacky) voted to do it. These members failed all of us as residents. Failed to use their vote, whether heard or unheard (made a difference in the out come), failed to represent you. McMillin insisted he'd save the day by writing the contract for the second award. In the end he bended to almost the position of "no contract". The document he created and signed had none of the basics - no total contract amount - $9,000, thereby avoiding the question as to why they wrote a $4,000 advance.
Take a look at legal. During 2011 there were many legal issues. Legal Chair Huggins, had declared months before that "it was all about legal". The Concerned Citizen majority board had fired their hand picked attorney - Moran. Why? It may be termed speculation, but review of minutes and files reveal that the final straw was Moran's positive opinion regarding the 2011 Recall Petitioners, who had petitioned for a recall under the SC State Law. The same laws the Concerned Citizens used to remove Davis and Gettmann in 2010. Huggins & Wilson went to attorney Moody for a second opinion, without board approval. Later, they took non board or committee member, Zieske to Moody. We paid, according to Zieske herself, for her to discuss the legal climate in the plantation. Several unapproved expenses appeared on the legal invoices. Finally in late 2011 the Board visited Moody. Mc Bride took notes and asked that they be included in the legal report in the minutes for December.
Now we are at the point that we have a new board. These discussions take place at the January 2012 Board meeting. The 2012 Board are Walton, Garrison, Cline, McMillin, Huggins, Walters, McBride, Barrier, and DeMarchi. Your board elects Walton president, Garrison vice president, Cline treasurer, and DeMarchi secretary. Walton appoints Garrsion as legal chair. Your Board voted against McBride's request to include the document and allowed the paid unauthorized legal expenses to stand Why? MC BRIDE'S REPORT IS PUBLISHED AT THE END OF THIS ARTICLE.
Where is President Walton in all of this? How short is his memory? Garrison is on record in 2010 Board Minutes and recordings, as being one of the 2010 board members who went after Reames and Wijthoff claiming they had misappropriated funds regarding a $7,500 check to Attorney Fulton. They were even threatened with prison terms. Please go to The Wedgefield Times, article # 22 , "Ruth & Yvette's Dilemma" (hit "here" on the front page). The article contains transcription of a Board Meeting tape, a quote from attorney Moran to "cease any further allegations of criminal wrong doing". Next go to the WPA website and read the minutes from the September 21, 2010 minutes. After two months of terror for these women, I spoke, presented documents, and they never brought it up again. Their malicious moves came as a surprise to everyone because after the recall of 2010 a vote was taken to hire attorney Moran, without the complete involvement of the Board. Thomas was legal chair during that time. There is an email on file where Thomas writes Moran and says, the equivalent of we are thinking of making Wijthoff president. That is how little they were looking out for good governance. There was a vendetta at play.
Remember the song, "What's It All About Alfie"? Hope I spelled Alfie correctly, but let's move on. Our song should not be "What's It All About Cohesion"? I don't want to return to a president who slugs a resident, a board who allows video taping of certain residents for the private use of the president, a board who regularly allows a certain section of the audience to act out and calls the police on other, a board who says we don't need security at the meetings but hires their own security when they are about to take a contentious vote, etc. I want board members who use the power of their one vote to put objections on record, to vote with our governing documents, to treat and answer all of us fairly, and represent all of us. Go back and look at the premises. The Board is failing to follow premise 5. We've added some new members due to resignations. They are Anderson and John Walton. We'll look at their voting records in another article. Today, my feeling is that they also want to sing, "we want cohesion". I want each and every board member to vote in the best interests of the community. Some might say that the community is served with cohesion. I say, you can't build a strong community ignoring our governing documents, ignoring good business judgement, and building on the promises of other board members who have no proven track record of doing what is in the best interest of the community.
HERE IS MC BRIDE'S REPORT:
i
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
CONFIDENTIALITY PRESENTATION AUGUST 21, WPA BOARD MEETING
I presented the following material during one of the two resident speaker slots last night at the Board Meeting. The meeting ran from 7:00 PM to about 9:45 PM. After, presenting the following, your Board, once again, broke the Confidentiality Agreement. Treasurer Cline, had prepared finance reports that were distributed to every member of the audience. The Cash Disbursement Report included individual resident names and the amount they received in refunds, etc. As the Board reviewed it, one of the Board Members brought up the fact that once again resident confidentiality was being broken. The Board agreed to find away to eliminate this information (resident name, etc) on future reports. Cline said, "blog away Madeline". I have nothing against Cline. This did not appear to be intentional on her part. However, your varied Board members, have had repeated breaks of resident confidentiality at the Board table, since they approved this policy change. They say the equivalent of "oops", and tie you to signing a document, without legal or insurance coverage against law suit, if you serve on a committee.
THE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND ITS CURRENT USE
Presented by, Madeline Y. Claveloux
August 21, 2012
The request to sign the document, with your expansion of its use beyond the requirements of the instrument itself, is an insult to the intelligence of the potential signer. You have required committee members to sign on to a false intentioned document.
As a resident, I have refused to sign the document in order to sit on a committee, and remain silent about the content of the discussions at the committee meeting table, none of which contained individual resident financial information. As I was making my decisions as to whether I would sign or not, and asked for clarification regarding the document, I was ignored by the Board. The very Board who voted on the policy, expanded its use, and can’t and won’t speak to its detail. That speaks volumes as to your confidence in its legal application.
As to repercussions to those committee and board members who violate its broadened use, there haven’t been any. It’s genuine use, “to protect individual resident financial information”, has publicly been violated by members of this Board, at the Board table in monthly meetings, and in the Wragg.
Several committee & Board Members have broken the agreement, under its expanded use and caused nothing more then a “favored member” grapevine that discharges information, unfettered, throughout our community to other “favored community members“, who you want to be “in the information stream”. You have created another unintended underground stream, those individuals who know what you are doing is wrong, and take your guarded information to people who are willing to get the word out. I thank those individuals who mail, drop anonymous notes, and the few brave souls who make calls to provide information, you don’t want the rest of the community to hear. You have intentionally divided our community, with the “information have - and have nots“.
This policy document should be walked back to the Board table, discussed, and a vote be held to remove it from policy, because it is nothing more than a sham.
Monday, August 20, 2012
WHEN CONFIDENTIALITY IS BROKEN AND STANDS IN CONTEMPT OF THE TRUTH AND BREEDS CONTEMPT OF THE TRUTH
I was going to take a day off from writing today. This morning I received a call from a person I have called a friend through the thick and thin of life and politics, here at Wedgefield. I will continue to call this individual a friend until they determine they will let politics get in the way of friendship. I won't name the friend.
The subject of the call was the article I wrote titled, "Has Roosevelt Come To Wedgefield?". I'm told members of the Nominating Committee are upset with the article.
I won't remove the article, or change the wording. If you read the article, I exonerated the Nominating Committee. They must follow the policy and direction of the Board. It is the Board and their policy that I found fault with.
This experience, calls like this from friends is not a new one. Approximately one year ago, I wrote an article, and named names. It brought down The Wedgefield Civic Group and either permanently destroyed friendships, or made them uncomfortable for a long period of time. For the friendships that remained, there should have been no doubt that I will continue to call a spade a spade. There are too many secrets in Wedgefield that are damaging to our governance, and once again to our community. The Board's misuse of the Confidentiality Agreement is intended to cause exactly the scenario that occurred this morning.
One would assume that the Nominating Committee members had to sign the Confidentiality Agreement. Those who talked to friends, who talked to more friends, who called me, did not break the agreement as it is currently written and signed. The agreement specifies the signer will not divulge individual resident financial information. Yet, your Board holds all committee members to a totally different standard. No one is to speak about any actions of any committee. Not one person gave information that related to individual financial information. Not one of the callers said this is a secret. Not one of the callers was a candidate. Every caller identified the committee member who told them.
If you are serving on a board, you are to operate openly, honestly, above board, to such a standard that you are willing to shout your postions, your votes, and your adherence to the governing documents of any entity, from the roof tops. You are to stand behind the decisions you made with integrity. You should be able to defend and discuss your postions, rather than harm and black ball individuals who are blatantly open with their questions and the information disseminated to the large group, or you have something to hide.
The nightmare returned this morning. Last year the issue was a bold faced lie, disseminated by a Board Member to a committee. The committee members were told not to talk about it. When they did, the Board Member had to find a scape goat. As I struggled with the harm, the out right lies, many of my friends told me, "it was politics". It hurt. Later, after they re-elected the liar, many of those same friends told me I had been right. The hurt was brought back again this morning. I hate being a scape goat. In fact, I won't be a scape goat. Don't run for your violins. I don't need them. I have learned through a long life to stand up and fight with truth and fact. If I get it wrong, I tell you. I haven't had to back track but once on the blog. I did it openly, to the broad base of readers, and I stated I made a mistake.
Final thought: It is time to get ready to vote again. Look, at the voting records of the candidates. They have voted for the Confidentiality Agreement. They have voted on the policy manual. They have had you pay for a legal opinion on a secret canal option, without telling you what it was. They have the legal opinion you paid for and not disclosed it. Next year, the calls could be coming your way, if you are brave enough to try and speak for truth.
The subject of the call was the article I wrote titled, "Has Roosevelt Come To Wedgefield?". I'm told members of the Nominating Committee are upset with the article.
I won't remove the article, or change the wording. If you read the article, I exonerated the Nominating Committee. They must follow the policy and direction of the Board. It is the Board and their policy that I found fault with.
This experience, calls like this from friends is not a new one. Approximately one year ago, I wrote an article, and named names. It brought down The Wedgefield Civic Group and either permanently destroyed friendships, or made them uncomfortable for a long period of time. For the friendships that remained, there should have been no doubt that I will continue to call a spade a spade. There are too many secrets in Wedgefield that are damaging to our governance, and once again to our community. The Board's misuse of the Confidentiality Agreement is intended to cause exactly the scenario that occurred this morning.
One would assume that the Nominating Committee members had to sign the Confidentiality Agreement. Those who talked to friends, who talked to more friends, who called me, did not break the agreement as it is currently written and signed. The agreement specifies the signer will not divulge individual resident financial information. Yet, your Board holds all committee members to a totally different standard. No one is to speak about any actions of any committee. Not one person gave information that related to individual financial information. Not one of the callers said this is a secret. Not one of the callers was a candidate. Every caller identified the committee member who told them.
If you are serving on a board, you are to operate openly, honestly, above board, to such a standard that you are willing to shout your postions, your votes, and your adherence to the governing documents of any entity, from the roof tops. You are to stand behind the decisions you made with integrity. You should be able to defend and discuss your postions, rather than harm and black ball individuals who are blatantly open with their questions and the information disseminated to the large group, or you have something to hide.
The nightmare returned this morning. Last year the issue was a bold faced lie, disseminated by a Board Member to a committee. The committee members were told not to talk about it. When they did, the Board Member had to find a scape goat. As I struggled with the harm, the out right lies, many of my friends told me, "it was politics". It hurt. Later, after they re-elected the liar, many of those same friends told me I had been right. The hurt was brought back again this morning. I hate being a scape goat. In fact, I won't be a scape goat. Don't run for your violins. I don't need them. I have learned through a long life to stand up and fight with truth and fact. If I get it wrong, I tell you. I haven't had to back track but once on the blog. I did it openly, to the broad base of readers, and I stated I made a mistake.
Final thought: It is time to get ready to vote again. Look, at the voting records of the candidates. They have voted for the Confidentiality Agreement. They have voted on the policy manual. They have had you pay for a legal opinion on a secret canal option, without telling you what it was. They have the legal opinion you paid for and not disclosed it. Next year, the calls could be coming your way, if you are brave enough to try and speak for truth.
RESIDENT JUDE DAVIS SHARES A RESPONSE FROM THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY
Dear Madeline,
Finally a straight answer from Edmund! I received the following on Friday and, just as contended, volunteers are not covered under the D&O Liability policy:
>
> " I have included some additional follow up in regards to your question about the insurance coverage for volunteer members within the community.
>
> "Jacky spoke with Kelly McGee from Stateowners Insurance in regards to her question on coverage for committee members. Kelly's response was that only Board members are covered under our current policy."
>
> Thanks,
>
> Edmund LaFrance
>
> Property Manager
>
> William Douglas Management"
Apparently, Jacky DID call the insurance company and DID receive an answer. This all happened last month . Kelly McGee's reply causes me, and should all of you, some real concerns:
Why did it take one month and numerous e-mails before an answer was forthcoming?
I believe that our attorney, Mr. Moody, opined months ago that all volunteers were, by extension, covered by the Board's policy. It is obvious that Mr. Moody made his opinion known WITHOUT checking with the insurance company. He opined without investigating the issue. Has he offered other opinions that do not pass the sniff test? He seems to give opinions that are contrary to opinions of other attorneys--recall petition, sub-association,... The legal chair has an obligation to make sure that Mr. Moody's opinions are based on a thorough investigation of fact, not 'off the cuff.'
Volunteers do not need to be covered by the D&O Policy if the Board would add to its policy manual something like the following:
The Board of Directors will cover any and all legal expenses incurred by an approved volunteer because of his/her actions as a committee member.
Madeline, it is unfortunate that the residents of this community continue to suffer under a Board that appears to make uninformed decisions.
Jude
Finally a straight answer from Edmund! I received the following on Friday and, just as contended, volunteers are not covered under the D&O Liability policy:
>
> " I have included some additional follow up in regards to your question about the insurance coverage for volunteer members within the community.
>
> "Jacky spoke with Kelly McGee from Stateowners Insurance in regards to her question on coverage for committee members. Kelly's response was that only Board members are covered under our current policy."
>
> Thanks,
>
> Edmund LaFrance
>
> Property Manager
>
> William Douglas Management"
Apparently, Jacky DID call the insurance company and DID receive an answer. This all happened last month . Kelly McGee's reply causes me, and should all of you, some real concerns:
Why did it take one month and numerous e-mails before an answer was forthcoming?
I believe that our attorney, Mr. Moody, opined months ago that all volunteers were, by extension, covered by the Board's policy. It is obvious that Mr. Moody made his opinion known WITHOUT checking with the insurance company. He opined without investigating the issue. Has he offered other opinions that do not pass the sniff test? He seems to give opinions that are contrary to opinions of other attorneys--recall petition, sub-association,... The legal chair has an obligation to make sure that Mr. Moody's opinions are based on a thorough investigation of fact, not 'off the cuff.'
Volunteers do not need to be covered by the D&O Policy if the Board would add to its policy manual something like the following:
The Board of Directors will cover any and all legal expenses incurred by an approved volunteer because of his/her actions as a committee member.
Madeline, it is unfortunate that the residents of this community continue to suffer under a Board that appears to make uninformed decisions.
Jude
Sunday, August 19, 2012
HAS ROOSEVELT COME TO WEDGEFIELD?
Why the question about Roosevelt? I remember reading, seeing movies and old news clips about Roosevelt’s Fireside Chats. Remember, Roosevelt used his Fireside Chats to bring his message right to the people, right into their homes. It appears your Board has attempted to take a page from Roosevelt’s book. Note: The comments are not directed at your volunteer neighbors on the Nominating Committee. They must follow the direction of your Board.
I’ve had four hysterical (as in laughter) calls from fellow residents relating your Board’s most recent attempts at following policy. The stories go like this: They interviewed Wijthoff at the office. Candidate John Walton was in a pool swimming with his grandchildren and wouldn’t leave it. So your Nominating Committee went to the pool side to interview him. Like Roosevelt, they tried to bring things into the home and family. Some how it doesn’t have the same impact. Now, no one knows whether your Nominating Committee even attempted to schedule a meeting in advance with him, or just called him after Wijthoff’s interview. Rumor is they interviewed Anderson at his business. DeMarchi is on vacation. Did they drive there? If you heard haunting, hysterical laughter, it was probably Roosevelt.
Your Board voted to approve the new policy manual, including the requirements for the Nominating Committee. Interviewing the Board candidates is required in the new policy. Secretary DeMarchi had reported that there weren’t significant changes in the Policy Manual. There were significant changes to the duties of the Nominating Committee. As I reviewed the old policy versus the new, I, too felt some changes were necessary.
Below, you’ll have the opportunity to review the old policy. HERE IT IS:
It was used during a different time in Wedgefield. When I moved here in 2004 potential candidates were identified and contacted by the Nominating Committee. Often, when they called a resident, they were told that the resident wasn’t interested. Some years, if there were three seats to be filled, they were fortunate to find three or four residents to run for Board. The election process, starting with the work of the Nominating Committee was changing.
The majority Board group (later calling themselves Concerned Citizens) of 2004 through 2008, were subject to recall, without regard to policy or by-law - straw voted fellow board members off the Board, and filled slots with their own. If you attended meetings regularly, the President changed several times in one year because of fighting amongst the Board. I was personally told by one of the Board members that the President changed three times in a one month period. One of the major changes was the the THOUGHT there might be canal dredging. The permit process went on for years and was nearing positive outcome. Sides begin to form and each side wanted representation. I believe by 2008, that residents who wanted to run for Board, simply submitted their resumes and "good standing" was verified.
I understand revamping the policy. It was needed. HERE IS THE NEW POLICY:
I don’t understand the interview. What is the purpose? Were all candidates scheduled in advance, asked the same questions and rated? If they were, and I doubt it, what were they going to do with the information if the candidate was in “good standing”?
As a resident, during this process in 2009, I questioned whether individuals who were currently suing the Board should be allowed to run for office. My major concern was the potential chaos at the Board table - Board member suing Board member. I was told that our attorney said we could not discriminate against any resident in good standing.
If you were going to modernize the policy, why the interview? All that they have created is a circus.
I’ve had four hysterical (as in laughter) calls from fellow residents relating your Board’s most recent attempts at following policy. The stories go like this: They interviewed Wijthoff at the office. Candidate John Walton was in a pool swimming with his grandchildren and wouldn’t leave it. So your Nominating Committee went to the pool side to interview him. Like Roosevelt, they tried to bring things into the home and family. Some how it doesn’t have the same impact. Now, no one knows whether your Nominating Committee even attempted to schedule a meeting in advance with him, or just called him after Wijthoff’s interview. Rumor is they interviewed Anderson at his business. DeMarchi is on vacation. Did they drive there? If you heard haunting, hysterical laughter, it was probably Roosevelt.
Your Board voted to approve the new policy manual, including the requirements for the Nominating Committee. Interviewing the Board candidates is required in the new policy. Secretary DeMarchi had reported that there weren’t significant changes in the Policy Manual. There were significant changes to the duties of the Nominating Committee. As I reviewed the old policy versus the new, I, too felt some changes were necessary.
Below, you’ll have the opportunity to review the old policy. HERE IT IS:
It was used during a different time in Wedgefield. When I moved here in 2004 potential candidates were identified and contacted by the Nominating Committee. Often, when they called a resident, they were told that the resident wasn’t interested. Some years, if there were three seats to be filled, they were fortunate to find three or four residents to run for Board. The election process, starting with the work of the Nominating Committee was changing.
The majority Board group (later calling themselves Concerned Citizens) of 2004 through 2008, were subject to recall, without regard to policy or by-law - straw voted fellow board members off the Board, and filled slots with their own. If you attended meetings regularly, the President changed several times in one year because of fighting amongst the Board. I was personally told by one of the Board members that the President changed three times in a one month period. One of the major changes was the the THOUGHT there might be canal dredging. The permit process went on for years and was nearing positive outcome. Sides begin to form and each side wanted representation. I believe by 2008, that residents who wanted to run for Board, simply submitted their resumes and "good standing" was verified.
I understand revamping the policy. It was needed. HERE IS THE NEW POLICY:
I don’t understand the interview. What is the purpose? Were all candidates scheduled in advance, asked the same questions and rated? If they were, and I doubt it, what were they going to do with the information if the candidate was in “good standing”?
As a resident, during this process in 2009, I questioned whether individuals who were currently suing the Board should be allowed to run for office. My major concern was the potential chaos at the Board table - Board member suing Board member. I was told that our attorney said we could not discriminate against any resident in good standing.
If you were going to modernize the policy, why the interview? All that they have created is a circus.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Wonder Dog Brady ANNOUNCES 10,000 HITS TO THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER BLOG
Brady says, "stay tuned" and don't stop here. Read the Jude Davis comment about the sub association option.
Friday, August 17, 2012
TWO WEEKS AND COUNTING SINCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE, MR LA FRANCE SAID HE WAS WORKING ON ANSWERING MY THREE MONTH OLD QUESTIONS. I'LL SHARE THEM IF AND WHEN HE OR YOUR BOARD ANSWERS
Seems, I can't depend on his own timeline. Is the problem your Board? Have they told him not to answer? President Walton, where are you? As President, your chief responsibility is management. Why aren't you involved in seeing that all your residents are treated respectfully, and equally? Why aren't you demanding answers from the management company, or your Community Liaison? In business if they can't do the job, they are replaced and they are out! It isn't just me. Several of your residents haven't been answered. Are you part of the problem?
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
HERE IS WHAT MR. LA FRANCE PROMISED:
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
HERE IS WHAT MR. LA FRANCE PROMISED:
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
Thursday, August 16, 2012
AUGUST 21, 2012 WPA AGENDA
Please plan on attending the August Board Meeting. We are only 3 meetings away from our annual meeting. Some of our current Board Members are running as candidates for Board. Isn't it time to observe them "in action at the Board table", before you vote?
HERE IS THE AGENDA:
WPA MONTHLY MEETING AGENDA
August 21, 2012
Call to Order – Jacky Walton
Attendance - Jacky Walton
Quorum- Al DeMarchi
Approve June Minutes – All Board Members
**Guest Speaker: Madeline Claveloux- Confidentiality, and its Current Use
Officer Reports
President – Jacky Walton
Vice President – Bob Garrison
Secretary –Al DeMarchi
Treasurer – Janine Cline
Committee Reports
ARC – Jacky Walton
Legal – Bob Garrison
Finance – Janine Cline
Communications- John Walton
Community Liaison- Jason Barrier
Welcome Committee- John Walton
Drainage – Al DeMarchi
Water Amenities- John McBride
Condo Liaison- Jacky Walton
Roads- Adam Anderson
Grounds – Larry McMillin
Compliance- Al DeMarchi
Old Business –
1st reading: Finance, Section VIII, Page 4, Item 6 : TO BE ADDED: "Late fees will be charged $20.00 per month on delinquent assessments. Late charges will be assessed on the fifth day of each month in which the late fees are not paid"
1st reading: Amend ARC manual Section III, Appendix III-3, Para. 3. Change notification time from 7 days to 20 days from date of receipt at the WPA office.
New Business –
Introduction of candidates.
Comment Section- Resident Comments
Adjourn – Jacky Walton
HERE IS THE AGENDA:
August 21, 2012
Call to Order – Jacky Walton
Attendance - Jacky Walton
Quorum- Al DeMarchi
Approve June Minutes – All Board Members
**Guest Speaker: Madeline Claveloux- Confidentiality, and its Current Use
Officer Reports
President – Jacky Walton
Vice President – Bob Garrison
Secretary –Al DeMarchi
Treasurer – Janine Cline
Committee Reports
ARC – Jacky Walton
Legal – Bob Garrison
Finance – Janine Cline
Communications- John Walton
Community Liaison- Jason Barrier
Welcome Committee- John Walton
Drainage – Al DeMarchi
Water Amenities- John McBride
Condo Liaison- Jacky Walton
Roads- Adam Anderson
Grounds – Larry McMillin
Compliance- Al DeMarchi
Old Business –
1st reading: Finance, Section VIII, Page 4, Item 6 : TO BE ADDED: "Late fees will be charged $20.00 per month on delinquent assessments. Late charges will be assessed on the fifth day of each month in which the late fees are not paid"
1st reading: Amend ARC manual Section III, Appendix III-3, Para. 3. Change notification time from 7 days to 20 days from date of receipt at the WPA office.
New Business –
Introduction of candidates.
Comment Section- Resident Comments
Adjourn – Jacky Walton
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
REVIEW OF CORRESPONDENCE FILE INDICATES MORE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
My visit to the WPA office to review the correspondence file was unsettling at best. Kathy, our staff secretary, is always pleasant, and provides what she has been allowed, without any leaks regarding the Board. So, Board you can be reassured that she is performing as she should. Why the clarification? The Board, so over burdened with their secrets, often look amongst each other for a scape goat to blame, if information you and I should have, is leaked. No one is immune to being accused of letting out their secrets.
I never go to the office unannounced. In the past, when I wanted to review a file, I wrote and asked when it would be convenient. As you know, the Board doesn't answer me. In fact, Secretary DeMarchi, then put in writing to ANOTHER resident (break of confidentiality?), just how demanding I am. So now, I just write and tell them when I'll be there. Here is the email announcing my visit on August 14th:
_______________________________________________________________________________
Board,
This morning I received a By-Law amendment in a white envelope, left over night.
Maybe it was the golf cart circling our canal last night at 10:00PM, with no
lights! Whoever it was, or whenever it was left for me, I am grateful. I've
published it on the Wedgefield Examiner.
I will come to the office to review the Correspondence file on Tuesday, August
14th, at 11:00AM. Since anything that comes to the office is CORRESPONDENCE,
I'm sure I'll find my By-Law in the file, along with the one from the "other
XXXX". Additionally, I hope to see Mr. LaFrance's answers to my long over due
for a response, questions. Proper purpose: I don't believe you are keeping the
file up to date.
WHY IS SECRETARY DEMARCHI TELLING PEOPLE I GET ANSWERED IMMEDIATELY? IS THERE NO CONFIDENTIALITY IN THAT OFFICE? THIS ISN'T THE DEAD LETTER OFFICE, I DON'T HAVE ANSWERS.
_________________________________________________________________________________
As I greeted Kathy and she handed me the Correspondence file, she said she had been told to tell me the following, "that in regard to the amendments to the by-laws that they have to go to legal first." In most offices anything that comes in, in written form, is correspondence. A copy should have been date stamped, with a time of day notation, and placed in the file. We all had to follow rules, whether it was on your candidate for board submission, or your by-law change. Most notably, you were required to submit your information at a certain date and time. Forget any office, this is Wedgefield's office, home of secrets, underground games between resident and Board factions, and where trust has long since evaporated. In the least, wouldn't you have thought that the Board would have covered themselves by putting the information in the file? "Has to go to Legal", has become nothing but one of Wedgefield's dark holes, a bottom less pit! The amendments and the candidate submissions were not in the file.
Mr. LaFrance's promised responses to my questions were not in the file. LaFrance's answers (not) to Jude Davis, were not in the file. Take time to read, "After Months, The Promise of an Answer - No Answer. This is his response to Davis, provided to the blog, by Davis. I went back to her letter to the Board. My article is correct, she received no real answers, and some questions were ignored.
HERE THEY ARE from her June 20th letter: 1) According to the financial report the WPA sent the management company $53,000 in May. Since this amount is $20,000 more than the number tossed around, why? Mr. LaFrance should have jumped on that question and had the answer in minutes.
2) I am extremely uncomfortable with Mr. Moody's interpretation of the insurance company's extension of indemnification to volunteers. Could you have the insurance company confirm this indemnification in writing? Isn't two months long enough to wait for something that could have been secured easily? Instead, read the article and review the run around she gets. Additionally, she was in the office weeks ago when President Walton said he was calling the insurance company for the answer. To date, if he has it, he isn't sharing it. Why?
3) Is it legal for the WPA to give away association property? Doesn't this property belong to all members? La France didn't touch that. No answer.
Residents, this is about more than having your letters to the Board answered. It is about the agenda of your Board. It is about refusal to recognize that your Board is selecting who is important enough to answer, when we all pay the same assessment, per lot. We are all investors in our community and should be treated equally. DeMarchi has made enough rules and procedures regarding correspondence to compete with the federal tax code. Davis must be listed as a non resident. Read, "Another Concerned Citizen Receives Immediate Attention From Secretary DeMarchi."
NOTE TO THE BOARD: I'd start working on getting all correspondence into the correspondence file. What do I mean? For instance, Secretary De Marchi, stated that there had been a request for rumble strips on the state road leading to the association, at the July Board Meeting. Since all requests are to be in writing, one would assume the request would be in the file. I've checked twice now, and there isn't one. Rumor is that it is DeMarchi who wants the rumble strips. If true, in the least he should have written his own request and sent it to the office to be placed in the file. He's a resident. Even, if it was in the file, why is our Board jumping through hoops, at one request. Sometimes, the answer to a resident is "no". I know that, because when you don't answer me, it is the same as 'no".
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
I never go to the office unannounced. In the past, when I wanted to review a file, I wrote and asked when it would be convenient. As you know, the Board doesn't answer me. In fact, Secretary DeMarchi, then put in writing to ANOTHER resident (break of confidentiality?), just how demanding I am. So now, I just write and tell them when I'll be there. Here is the email announcing my visit on August 14th:
_______________________________________________________________________________
Board,
This morning I received a By-Law amendment in a white envelope, left over night.
Maybe it was the golf cart circling our canal last night at 10:00PM, with no
lights! Whoever it was, or whenever it was left for me, I am grateful. I've
published it on the Wedgefield Examiner.
I will come to the office to review the Correspondence file on Tuesday, August
14th, at 11:00AM. Since anything that comes to the office is CORRESPONDENCE,
I'm sure I'll find my By-Law in the file, along with the one from the "other
XXXX". Additionally, I hope to see Mr. LaFrance's answers to my long over due
for a response, questions. Proper purpose: I don't believe you are keeping the
file up to date.
WHY IS SECRETARY DEMARCHI TELLING PEOPLE I GET ANSWERED IMMEDIATELY? IS THERE NO CONFIDENTIALITY IN THAT OFFICE? THIS ISN'T THE DEAD LETTER OFFICE, I DON'T HAVE ANSWERS.
_________________________________________________________________________________
As I greeted Kathy and she handed me the Correspondence file, she said she had been told to tell me the following, "that in regard to the amendments to the by-laws that they have to go to legal first." In most offices anything that comes in, in written form, is correspondence. A copy should have been date stamped, with a time of day notation, and placed in the file. We all had to follow rules, whether it was on your candidate for board submission, or your by-law change. Most notably, you were required to submit your information at a certain date and time. Forget any office, this is Wedgefield's office, home of secrets, underground games between resident and Board factions, and where trust has long since evaporated. In the least, wouldn't you have thought that the Board would have covered themselves by putting the information in the file? "Has to go to Legal", has become nothing but one of Wedgefield's dark holes, a bottom less pit! The amendments and the candidate submissions were not in the file.
Mr. LaFrance's promised responses to my questions were not in the file. LaFrance's answers (not) to Jude Davis, were not in the file. Take time to read, "After Months, The Promise of an Answer - No Answer. This is his response to Davis, provided to the blog, by Davis. I went back to her letter to the Board. My article is correct, she received no real answers, and some questions were ignored.
HERE THEY ARE from her June 20th letter: 1) According to the financial report the WPA sent the management company $53,000 in May. Since this amount is $20,000 more than the number tossed around, why? Mr. LaFrance should have jumped on that question and had the answer in minutes.
2) I am extremely uncomfortable with Mr. Moody's interpretation of the insurance company's extension of indemnification to volunteers. Could you have the insurance company confirm this indemnification in writing? Isn't two months long enough to wait for something that could have been secured easily? Instead, read the article and review the run around she gets. Additionally, she was in the office weeks ago when President Walton said he was calling the insurance company for the answer. To date, if he has it, he isn't sharing it. Why?
3) Is it legal for the WPA to give away association property? Doesn't this property belong to all members? La France didn't touch that. No answer.
Residents, this is about more than having your letters to the Board answered. It is about the agenda of your Board. It is about refusal to recognize that your Board is selecting who is important enough to answer, when we all pay the same assessment, per lot. We are all investors in our community and should be treated equally. DeMarchi has made enough rules and procedures regarding correspondence to compete with the federal tax code. Davis must be listed as a non resident. Read, "Another Concerned Citizen Receives Immediate Attention From Secretary DeMarchi."
NOTE TO THE BOARD: I'd start working on getting all correspondence into the correspondence file. What do I mean? For instance, Secretary De Marchi, stated that there had been a request for rumble strips on the state road leading to the association, at the July Board Meeting. Since all requests are to be in writing, one would assume the request would be in the file. I've checked twice now, and there isn't one. Rumor is that it is DeMarchi who wants the rumble strips. If true, in the least he should have written his own request and sent it to the office to be placed in the file. He's a resident. Even, if it was in the file, why is our Board jumping through hoops, at one request. Sometimes, the answer to a resident is "no". I know that, because when you don't answer me, it is the same as 'no".
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
CLARIFICATION OF THE CANAL SUB COMMITTEE OPTION IS PUT IN WRITING
On August 14th I reviewed the Correspondence File at the WPA office. I'm not provided with copies, so I hand wrote the following which was written by Canal Sub Committee Chair, Adam Anderson. If there are typos, they are mine and not Anderson's. THE POSITION STATEMENT FOLLOWS AND WAS NOTED "FOR THE CANAL SUB COMMITTEE AND THE WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE":
"The canal dredging issue at Wedgefield has been the single most divisive and damaging problem our neighborhood has ever faced. While the mood and overall attitudes in the plantation has improved since its peak of a few year ago, a relaxed approach will certainly bring us back full circle if we don't address this issue now and bring the canal dredging problem to some sort of resolution. The water amenities committee started a sub committee back in January to look at any and all possibilities and scenarios.
The canal sub committee has come up with what we believe is the ultimate way to resolve this issue. Some of these are not new ideas as they have been talked about before. Several things have to happen in order for this to work and the cooperation of everyone will be needed. Here is our plan.
1) The canal lots need to form their own regime. It's only purpose would be canal maintenance. The canal lots would still belong to the WPA and everything else would be as it is now. The new regime would have its own by-laws and board, much like the condo regimes within Wedgefield.
2) Through a new by-law that would need to be approved at an annual meeting by 2/3 of the membership, the WPA would commit a set amount of money on a percentage of its yearly budget to the new regime. The details of this would need to be worked on a little more but the number we are currently looking at is in the $40-$50 per lot range.
3)The WPA would then be relieved of any financial obligation to the canal lot owners. It would then be up to the canal regime to find the remaining amount in whatever manner they decide.
This would allow the canal lot owners to handle their own affairs regarding canal maintenance and would alleviate the WPA from having to deal with the controversial aspects of this issue. It would end the pitting of neighbor against neighbor that has hurt the property values and reputation of Wedgefield in the public eye. The cost of setting this up would be minimal. The biggest hurdle will be getting everyone on board. All of the canal lots and 2/3 of the participating voters at an annual election will need to support this in order for it to work. We believe there is no better way to resolve this. It puts the majority of the expense on the canal lots where it should be, and still allows for a small contribution from the entire community to cover the drainage and debris that the entire plantation contributes to the filling in of the canals. It is fair to everyone."
As stated in a previous article, I don't agree with this and we will never agree to sign on to a sub assosciation, as a canal lot owner. After eight years of living with irratic WPA boards, we are not going to put another entity in line, to harm our comfortable life. There are a number of concrete reasons not to support this.
1) My own investigation says it cannot be done legally - form a sub association after the fact.
2) I don't like the way the option was put together. It started with secrecy, avoiding the Chair of the larger committee - John Mc Bride, Chair of Water Amenities.
3) This was not the proposal the Canal sub committee took to discuss with Garrison's Legal Committee. This was Garrison's proposal.
4) I don't agree with the statements contained in this option. The WPA owns the spoil site. What happens with maintenance of it? Where would the canal sub association put the debris if they did dredge? The WPA owns over 45% of the frontage on the canals. The WPA adds debris everyday running their inefficient drainage into our canals.
5) The by-law addition to be voted on doesn't have a life time guarantee. Remember, we now have a by-law submission that if approved, would mandate one vote only, no matter how many lots you pay assessments on.
6) We already have a legal means - Individual Assessment, to assess canal lot owners and any other group and their circumstance, without playing Garrison's game. There is a bridge in Brooklyn attached to buying this option.
There are many more. Perhaps you will write and add to the list.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
"The canal dredging issue at Wedgefield has been the single most divisive and damaging problem our neighborhood has ever faced. While the mood and overall attitudes in the plantation has improved since its peak of a few year ago, a relaxed approach will certainly bring us back full circle if we don't address this issue now and bring the canal dredging problem to some sort of resolution. The water amenities committee started a sub committee back in January to look at any and all possibilities and scenarios.
The canal sub committee has come up with what we believe is the ultimate way to resolve this issue. Some of these are not new ideas as they have been talked about before. Several things have to happen in order for this to work and the cooperation of everyone will be needed. Here is our plan.
1) The canal lots need to form their own regime. It's only purpose would be canal maintenance. The canal lots would still belong to the WPA and everything else would be as it is now. The new regime would have its own by-laws and board, much like the condo regimes within Wedgefield.
2) Through a new by-law that would need to be approved at an annual meeting by 2/3 of the membership, the WPA would commit a set amount of money on a percentage of its yearly budget to the new regime. The details of this would need to be worked on a little more but the number we are currently looking at is in the $40-$50 per lot range.
3)The WPA would then be relieved of any financial obligation to the canal lot owners. It would then be up to the canal regime to find the remaining amount in whatever manner they decide.
This would allow the canal lot owners to handle their own affairs regarding canal maintenance and would alleviate the WPA from having to deal with the controversial aspects of this issue. It would end the pitting of neighbor against neighbor that has hurt the property values and reputation of Wedgefield in the public eye. The cost of setting this up would be minimal. The biggest hurdle will be getting everyone on board. All of the canal lots and 2/3 of the participating voters at an annual election will need to support this in order for it to work. We believe there is no better way to resolve this. It puts the majority of the expense on the canal lots where it should be, and still allows for a small contribution from the entire community to cover the drainage and debris that the entire plantation contributes to the filling in of the canals. It is fair to everyone."
As stated in a previous article, I don't agree with this and we will never agree to sign on to a sub assosciation, as a canal lot owner. After eight years of living with irratic WPA boards, we are not going to put another entity in line, to harm our comfortable life. There are a number of concrete reasons not to support this.
1) My own investigation says it cannot be done legally - form a sub association after the fact.
2) I don't like the way the option was put together. It started with secrecy, avoiding the Chair of the larger committee - John Mc Bride, Chair of Water Amenities.
3) This was not the proposal the Canal sub committee took to discuss with Garrison's Legal Committee. This was Garrison's proposal.
4) I don't agree with the statements contained in this option. The WPA owns the spoil site. What happens with maintenance of it? Where would the canal sub association put the debris if they did dredge? The WPA owns over 45% of the frontage on the canals. The WPA adds debris everyday running their inefficient drainage into our canals.
5) The by-law addition to be voted on doesn't have a life time guarantee. Remember, we now have a by-law submission that if approved, would mandate one vote only, no matter how many lots you pay assessments on.
6) We already have a legal means - Individual Assessment, to assess canal lot owners and any other group and their circumstance, without playing Garrison's game. There is a bridge in Brooklyn attached to buying this option.
There are many more. Perhaps you will write and add to the list.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
ANOTHER CONCERNED CITIZEN RECEIVES IMMEDIATE ATTENTION FROM SECRETARY DE MARCHI
Today, August 14th, I went to the office to review the correspondence file. I didn't find everything that should have been in there. I'll report about that later. However, at a time when many have not received answers, once again Secretary DeMarchi jumps when a Concerned Citizen - Zieske writes. She doesn't write the Board, just DeMarchi.
On August 6th, subject: Board Seats, Zieske writes the office with this note, "Kathy, Would you please copy this to Al DeMarchi."
"Al, I believe you have the wrong number of seats posted as open for the next annual meeting. Anyone that was appointed during the year must run for election as well as the three people that have their three year term up. I believe it should be 5 openings. Check it out.
Just to hopefully help."
Zieske then quotes the by-law.
Al DeMarchi leaps into action. He writes Kathy at the office:
"Kathy, I thought we checked this out a long time ago. I had asked about the positions and time remaining. Please GET WITH JACKY WALTON (DeMarchi capitalizes his demand.) and check this out. If there is a question, please call Carol Z. and ask how she came up with this number.
I believe the number 3 is correct.
Al"
You know how I feel about DeMarchi's preference for serving the Concerned Citizens above all his rules and policies. Additionally, I was secretary in 2009 and running for the Board. I handled development of the packet, training of volunteers, etc. but never touched or had contact with a proxy or a ballot. With that said Zieske's cohorts went ballistic before and after the election. To my knowledge DeMarchi is a candidate. Why would Zieske be so anxious to help him, without question to his being a candidate, and Secretary working with the annual meeting? The other side of the double standard is DeMarchi leaps when she beckons!
After I got home, I thought about all of this. I called Jude Davis. She has since sent the following to The Wedgefield Examiner:
On August 6th, subject: Board Seats, Zieske writes the office with this note, "Kathy, Would you please copy this to Al DeMarchi."
"Al, I believe you have the wrong number of seats posted as open for the next annual meeting. Anyone that was appointed during the year must run for election as well as the three people that have their three year term up. I believe it should be 5 openings. Check it out.
Just to hopefully help."
Zieske then quotes the by-law.
Al DeMarchi leaps into action. He writes Kathy at the office:
"Kathy, I thought we checked this out a long time ago. I had asked about the positions and time remaining. Please GET WITH JACKY WALTON (DeMarchi capitalizes his demand.) and check this out. If there is a question, please call Carol Z. and ask how she came up with this number.
I believe the number 3 is correct.
Al"
You know how I feel about DeMarchi's preference for serving the Concerned Citizens above all his rules and policies. Additionally, I was secretary in 2009 and running for the Board. I handled development of the packet, training of volunteers, etc. but never touched or had contact with a proxy or a ballot. With that said Zieske's cohorts went ballistic before and after the election. To my knowledge DeMarchi is a candidate. Why would Zieske be so anxious to help him, without question to his being a candidate, and Secretary working with the annual meeting? The other side of the double standard is DeMarchi leaps when she beckons!
After I got home, I thought about all of this. I called Jude Davis. She has since sent the following to The Wedgefield Examiner:
Madeline,
I received another phone call shortly after you and I spoke concerning the
same thing—how many positions are up for election this year. While I do not
want to impugn anyone’s intelligence, it also doesn’t take a rocket scientist to
figure out that we will have three openings this November.
McBride, McMillin, and Kline were elected in 2011 for three years and
have two more years on their terms.
Garrison, Walton, and Barrier were elected in 2010 for three years and
have one more year.
Al DeMarchi was elected in 2011 for 1 year and his position is
open.
Walton and Anderson were appointed and therefore their positions are
open.
I understand that the individual claiming that we have five openings wrote
directly to the Secretary and received immediate action---again, different
strokes for different folks. Shame on Al for not knowing how many
openings!
Jude
First, thank you to Jude Davis. Second, residents keep following. You are going to be put in a position of considering who you will elect? You might ask yourself, who will represent you, who will even answer you, will they even bother to operate fairly?
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
TWO NEW ARTICLES TODAY, ONE LAST NIGHT, AND MORE TO COME SOON, STAYED TUNED!
Residents, stay tuned. Today, two new articles were posted: "WHAT A DIFFERENCE ONE YEAR CAN MAKE! IT DEPENDS WHO IS SPEAKING AS TO WHETHER YOUR BOARD WILL TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION, OR NOT" and "RESIDENT WRITES THE BOARD AND SAYS, 'MORE TALK AND DELAYS ARE UNACCEPTABLE"
Don't miss out. Watch the blog. I have several articles in process. Read here for information on what the Board won't answer, what they won't tell you, and the fraternity Board.
Don't miss out. Watch the blog. I have several articles in process. Read here for information on what the Board won't answer, what they won't tell you, and the fraternity Board.
RESIDENT WRITES THE BOARD AND SAYS, "MORE TALK AND DELAYS ARE UNACCEPTABLE"
PLEASE NOTE: The following comments, in blue, are not those of the resident, but mine. I'll provide the document, as delivered to The Wedgefield Examiner. I can't help but ask, "Where is Secretary DeMarchi? According to the documents below he promised this resident "action", whether response, etc., in June. I ask, does your name have to be Thomas to get a quick 3 HOUR response time from the Board? Oh, I forgot, DeMarchi has burdened the response system with more layers, after he did death defying leaps for Thomas. Well, the rest of us can just wait our turn, beyond policy, beyond his new rules, and sometimes - NEVER HAVE HOPE OF AN ANSWER. Mr. La France where are you? I've been waiting for months for answers, even after you wrote and told me you were working on it?
Remember, the words in blue are mine.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
HERE ARE THE DOCUMENTS:
Remember, the words in blue are mine.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
HERE ARE THE DOCUMENTS:
WHAT A DIFFERENCE ONE YEAR CAN MAKE! IT DEPENDS WHO IS SPEAKING, AS TO WHETHER YOUR BOARD WILL TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION, OR NOT
This report at first glance, may appear to be about roads, our roads. Some of the content will be about roads. The real issue presented however, is about YOUR BOARD'S total continued disregard for fellow Board Member McBride, and the concrete information he tries to bring to the Board table on a monthly basis. He was disregarded a year ago, as he tried to bring good business sense to the table about roads. The Board and all residents are being bitten in the proverbial butt, for their lack of voting in the best interests of the association, rather than in behalf of their cronies. We are not only back to ROADS, but to some of the same POT HOLES, that were repaired last year. As you read, remember some of the 2011 Board are out of the picture - Thomas, Wilson, Huggins. As you read, remember some of the same players - Garrison, President Walton, Barrier, McMillin - who scoffed, ignored, and voted against sound business advice, are now listening to a new player - Anderson- singing the same song McBride did, and they are humming in agreement with him. This is not against Anderson's efforts to do the job right. It isn't even specifically about McBride. It is about any Board Member who isn't in the club. I have not spoken to McBride about this. He has not been involved.
It is time for you to think about these current players, including Anderson, and their regular disregard and violation of the Code of Ethics. They all signed it. Back to roads to completely make the point.
2012: During the June Board Meeting, Anderson reported he had completed a study of the roads and mapped the areas to be considered for repair, with priority notations. He and Mr. LaFrance were going to work together on securing bids. In July as I listen to the tape Anderson begins to speak of the need to bring in a arborist to look at the large oak root damage to the roads, individuals to look at the other underlying problems beneath the surface of the problem areas in our roads, etc. This is great, the way it should be. Remember, Garrison, Barrier, McMillin, and President Walton appear to think it is great. These same Board Members, who you are suppose to have confidence in, in determining how we will allocate monies, all voted against McBride in 2011. Think I'm mistaken? Not so! Remember we spent $29,000 on roads last year, on a contractor that had no contract, no license, no insurance, and didn't return to finish for months! That was with the first $20,000. There was another $9,000 to be spent. Garrison, Barrier, McMillin, and Walton gave it to the same vendor. McBride argued all the way.
I've taken the following quote from the August 16, 2011 Meeting Minutes. It should be noted that the minutes are noted as "corrected & replaced Road's Report". The quote from the minutes is long. It is important to read through this garbage to get the point. HERE IT IS:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John McBride: What I would like the board to approve, is to approve the roads committee to search for technical support to determine what we actually need to do with these 42 spots that we have out there. Before they get any worse, ok, and procure bids for that at the same time we need to search for what money we might have available to do the job. But there will be a cost with this help that we need. I think we need the help because there are too many different ways to patch something and the best way and there is an affordable way and we need the affordable way.
Bob Garrison: In my view, that’s what we’re paying the guys that’s doing the paving to figure out. To bring in an engineering firm or a manager, whatever you’re suggesting I think is just wasted money. We’re not talking about sending something to Neptune here, we’re talking about paving roads. That’s a fairly straight forward concept I think there’s enough expertise here with people that do this and have done it, Johnny & Jacky, that we don’t have a pretty good idea of what we can spec to without having to spend money to tell us that. That’s just my view.
Jacky Walton: Can I make a comment? This is just my recent past experience, I used a paving company to come out and do some patching for me. This particular company had their own engineer in-house, so when we contacted them they sent him out to observe and to give a quote based on their engineers specs.
Johnny Huggins: So that was included in the quote?
Jacky Walton: Right, that was included in the quote.
Johnny Huggins: We should be able to get that.
Jacky Walton: You may even need to ask that John, If they have an in house engineer that would come out and would spec it. That would save that money in my opinion.
John McBride: Do we know of a paving company that has that around here?
Jacky Walton: I’m pretty sure that Palmetto Paving has their own engineer.
John McBride: Palmetto Paving does?
Jacky Walton: If I’m not mistaken.
John McBride: I can ask.
Johnny Huggins: Why can’t we get the road committee look into the specs?
John McBride: I did, I got a book, I haven’t had Kathy print them out because the book probably 100 pages long. I’m not a road expert, I cannot do this. I can look at what we need to do but I cannot specify what we need to do the right job on these patches, some of these patches wouldn’t have been done with what I know now, would not have been done the way they were done, ok, so I don’t feel like I can rely on a contractor to do what I need an engineer to tell me what’s the best most affordable to make, let’s just say, a cul-de-sac useable to us for a long period of time. Stuff we have going through these cul-de-sacs today they are tearing it up. Just tearing it up, so what do we need to do, how thick does that asphalt need to be, how thick does that base need to be, what kind of base do we need to use its complex, it’s not simple. One of the things we’re seeing where these roads are alligatoring you see a lot cracks and you see a lot of sand on there, that’s the base coming through the cracks. So you’re losing the base. New base has to go in, all that has to come out and it’s because of water. But I can look and see if there’s a company that has that but what do I do if I can’t find one?
Fred Thomas: Talk to George
John McBride: George?
Fred Thomas: George Wilson, he had a bunch of contacts.
Johnny Huggins: He might have something useable.
John McBride: I’ve got every contact in Conway and it’s right on the computer. That’s approved, ok.
Fred Thomas: George has got contacts. And he said most had their own in-house engineer.
Bob Garrison: Let me ask you a question. Are ya’ll prepared at this point to move ahead you already got this other $9,000 approved, right? We’ve got plenty of stuff to do that doesn’t take an engineer or a rocket scientist or anybody else to figure out where some of these holes are. Now what the best way to fill them is to be is open to question, I understand that, are ya’ll prepared to spend that $9,000 now with the guy we got?
John McBride: Well I am willing to spend up to $20,000 with the guy that we have. And that will take care of like entrance here and another pot hole down…..
Bob Garrison: What $20,000?
Johnny Huggins: The remaining of the $20,000. I would like to not postpone it anymore and let him finish this piece, and if we can find more people with better bids then I’ll just tell him thank you and get a job with Earthworks.
John McBride: Let’s spend up to the $20,000 and leave it at that and then…
Johnny Huggins: Then you have another month without any road repair.
John McBride: It’s not going to hurt us? We’ve been months right now. I just don’t want to spend money and not get value for it.
Jacky Walton: Well, here’s one of the problems if we don’t address some of these holes now, if we wait another month, we wait another 2 months instead of spending $1,000 to repair these holes we’ll be spending $10,000 to repair because we didn’t repair them now.
(Board Commotion) Inaudible
Fred Thomas: We start getting into the fall, these things are going to be gigantic.
John McBride: We’ve got enough money, whether 1,000 square feet….1,000 square feet is a lot of holes.
Johnny Huggins: The $9,000 has been approved. Plus pending with you coming in here with a real quote which we don’t really have, I’m not saying you’re not doing a wonderful job but we don’t have it and we’re getting into another month behind is the problem. And I’ve been telling these people every time they walk in here that you got to be here tomorrow.
Fred Thomas: We started this thing in May?
Johnny Huggins: I just want to finish this little chunk of change here, the $9,000 with the guy we got and then we’ll kiss him goodbye.
John McBride: (Inaudible) ….will put $5,000 with that chunk of change to offset the extra pot? Do you want to do that?
Johnny Huggins: Do what?
John McBride: I’m saying, to spend $9,000 it will take $15,000 to do the same amount of work….in other words he’s going charge us too much money, by $5,000. I’m not willing to spend $5,000 to throw away. That’s more than $10.00 a person here. That’s a lot of money Johnny.
Jacky Walton: I agree with what you’re saying, but here’s another problem, do you know asphalt? You don’t have a couple more months and they’ll be shutting the plants down. So now you’ll be waiting until the spring of next year.
John McBride: I think we can take the major holes we have and fix them.
Bob Garrison: How many big holes do we have?
Jacky Walton: Who’s going to check them?
Bob Garrison: Well you know where they are.
Jacky Walton: I make a motion that we use Myrtle Paving to continue with the paving using the remaining $9,000 from the budget.
John McBride: That’s not going to complete the work, though.
Bob Garrison: Well, we know that. You’re never going to complete the road paving work because….
John McBride: I want to take that $9,000 with a new contract, if we put it out for bids and do it in the right way, ok. Use some of that money with an engineering company so we correct these problems the right way.
Bob Garrison: John, you haven’t convinced me yet that you got anybody to come in here and do for $1.25 a square foot.
Johnny Huggins: We got a motion.
Bob Garrison: Second of all if you’re using some of the money for this engineering firm then you don’t have much money in terms now it’s not a $1.25 a square foot anymore. It’s $1.25-1.30 a square foot plus the engineering firm divided by that number of square feet. When we get all done, we probably talking about less than $1.00 a square foot and waiting 3 more months to do it.
Jason Barrier: I second Jacky’s motion.
Fred Thomas: I already seconded it. We got a motion and a second.
Bob Garrison: Alright, any other discussion?
Larry McMillin: For the sake of timing and everything I think this is the right way to go with this. I think if we prioritize the areas that we want done to get the worst ones done first and whenever he runs out of money that’s it. We have a new budget coming up give me some figures you think you need for next year and dollar amount and we will work it in. For expediency and the fact that the school buses are going to start coming in next week we need to get something done. We’ve waited all summer.
Bob Garrison: Alright, any other discussion?
Johnny Huggins: Ok, he just resigned. From Roads.
John McBride: Yep, I’m done. If I don’t get the help I need to do….
Bob Garrison: If you don’t get your way….. (Commotion)
Johnny Huggins: That’s ok, let’s not argue.
Bob Garrison: All those in favor of the motion presented by Jacky , signify by saying aye.
Motion passes 7 to 1.
A motion was made and seconded to release the remaining $9,000 to Myrtle Paving, Danny Lee to repair the remaining potholes. Motion was passed with 7 ayes and 1 no.
John McBride then resigned from the roads committee.
________________________________________________________________________________
What changed since last year? What caused Garrison, Barrier, McMillin, and President Walton to change their minds? Nothing except, I believe if you are John McBride, you aren't part of the fraternity of brothers, and you don't have a chance to be heard. Why? I think the rest are making back room deals. I'm not talking about money. I talking about, "you wash my arrogant heavy handed controlling BACK and I'll wash yours." That's why we have Garrison as Legal Chair, Walton, as President, and McBride left out of important meetings.
It is time to think about all of this. Anderson, Walton (John), and DeMarchi are running for Board, along with Taco Wijthoff. I'm doing research on their voting records. You'll be the judge as to whether they vote in the best interests of Wedgefield, or in the best interests of the fraternity brotherhood. Wijthoff, gets my vote.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
It is time for you to think about these current players, including Anderson, and their regular disregard and violation of the Code of Ethics. They all signed it. Back to roads to completely make the point.
2012: During the June Board Meeting, Anderson reported he had completed a study of the roads and mapped the areas to be considered for repair, with priority notations. He and Mr. LaFrance were going to work together on securing bids. In July as I listen to the tape Anderson begins to speak of the need to bring in a arborist to look at the large oak root damage to the roads, individuals to look at the other underlying problems beneath the surface of the problem areas in our roads, etc. This is great, the way it should be. Remember, Garrison, Barrier, McMillin, and President Walton appear to think it is great. These same Board Members, who you are suppose to have confidence in, in determining how we will allocate monies, all voted against McBride in 2011. Think I'm mistaken? Not so! Remember we spent $29,000 on roads last year, on a contractor that had no contract, no license, no insurance, and didn't return to finish for months! That was with the first $20,000. There was another $9,000 to be spent. Garrison, Barrier, McMillin, and Walton gave it to the same vendor. McBride argued all the way.
I've taken the following quote from the August 16, 2011 Meeting Minutes. It should be noted that the minutes are noted as "corrected & replaced Road's Report". The quote from the minutes is long. It is important to read through this garbage to get the point. HERE IT IS:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John McBride: What I would like the board to approve, is to approve the roads committee to search for technical support to determine what we actually need to do with these 42 spots that we have out there. Before they get any worse, ok, and procure bids for that at the same time we need to search for what money we might have available to do the job. But there will be a cost with this help that we need. I think we need the help because there are too many different ways to patch something and the best way and there is an affordable way and we need the affordable way.
Bob Garrison: In my view, that’s what we’re paying the guys that’s doing the paving to figure out. To bring in an engineering firm or a manager, whatever you’re suggesting I think is just wasted money. We’re not talking about sending something to Neptune here, we’re talking about paving roads. That’s a fairly straight forward concept I think there’s enough expertise here with people that do this and have done it, Johnny & Jacky, that we don’t have a pretty good idea of what we can spec to without having to spend money to tell us that. That’s just my view.
Jacky Walton: Can I make a comment? This is just my recent past experience, I used a paving company to come out and do some patching for me. This particular company had their own engineer in-house, so when we contacted them they sent him out to observe and to give a quote based on their engineers specs.
Johnny Huggins: So that was included in the quote?
Jacky Walton: Right, that was included in the quote.
Johnny Huggins: We should be able to get that.
Jacky Walton: You may even need to ask that John, If they have an in house engineer that would come out and would spec it. That would save that money in my opinion.
John McBride: Do we know of a paving company that has that around here?
Jacky Walton: I’m pretty sure that Palmetto Paving has their own engineer.
John McBride: Palmetto Paving does?
Jacky Walton: If I’m not mistaken.
John McBride: I can ask.
Johnny Huggins: Why can’t we get the road committee look into the specs?
John McBride: I did, I got a book, I haven’t had Kathy print them out because the book probably 100 pages long. I’m not a road expert, I cannot do this. I can look at what we need to do but I cannot specify what we need to do the right job on these patches, some of these patches wouldn’t have been done with what I know now, would not have been done the way they were done, ok, so I don’t feel like I can rely on a contractor to do what I need an engineer to tell me what’s the best most affordable to make, let’s just say, a cul-de-sac useable to us for a long period of time. Stuff we have going through these cul-de-sacs today they are tearing it up. Just tearing it up, so what do we need to do, how thick does that asphalt need to be, how thick does that base need to be, what kind of base do we need to use its complex, it’s not simple. One of the things we’re seeing where these roads are alligatoring you see a lot cracks and you see a lot of sand on there, that’s the base coming through the cracks. So you’re losing the base. New base has to go in, all that has to come out and it’s because of water. But I can look and see if there’s a company that has that but what do I do if I can’t find one?
Fred Thomas: Talk to George
John McBride: George?
Fred Thomas: George Wilson, he had a bunch of contacts.
Johnny Huggins: He might have something useable.
John McBride: I’ve got every contact in Conway and it’s right on the computer. That’s approved, ok.
Fred Thomas: George has got contacts. And he said most had their own in-house engineer.
Bob Garrison: Let me ask you a question. Are ya’ll prepared at this point to move ahead you already got this other $9,000 approved, right? We’ve got plenty of stuff to do that doesn’t take an engineer or a rocket scientist or anybody else to figure out where some of these holes are. Now what the best way to fill them is to be is open to question, I understand that, are ya’ll prepared to spend that $9,000 now with the guy we got?
John McBride: Well I am willing to spend up to $20,000 with the guy that we have. And that will take care of like entrance here and another pot hole down…..
Bob Garrison: What $20,000?
Johnny Huggins: The remaining of the $20,000. I would like to not postpone it anymore and let him finish this piece, and if we can find more people with better bids then I’ll just tell him thank you and get a job with Earthworks.
John McBride: Let’s spend up to the $20,000 and leave it at that and then…
Johnny Huggins: Then you have another month without any road repair.
John McBride: It’s not going to hurt us? We’ve been months right now. I just don’t want to spend money and not get value for it.
Jacky Walton: Well, here’s one of the problems if we don’t address some of these holes now, if we wait another month, we wait another 2 months instead of spending $1,000 to repair these holes we’ll be spending $10,000 to repair because we didn’t repair them now.
(Board Commotion) Inaudible
Fred Thomas: We start getting into the fall, these things are going to be gigantic.
John McBride: We’ve got enough money, whether 1,000 square feet….1,000 square feet is a lot of holes.
Johnny Huggins: The $9,000 has been approved. Plus pending with you coming in here with a real quote which we don’t really have, I’m not saying you’re not doing a wonderful job but we don’t have it and we’re getting into another month behind is the problem. And I’ve been telling these people every time they walk in here that you got to be here tomorrow.
Fred Thomas: We started this thing in May?
Johnny Huggins: I just want to finish this little chunk of change here, the $9,000 with the guy we got and then we’ll kiss him goodbye.
John McBride: (Inaudible) ….will put $5,000 with that chunk of change to offset the extra pot? Do you want to do that?
Johnny Huggins: Do what?
John McBride: I’m saying, to spend $9,000 it will take $15,000 to do the same amount of work….in other words he’s going charge us too much money, by $5,000. I’m not willing to spend $5,000 to throw away. That’s more than $10.00 a person here. That’s a lot of money Johnny.
Jacky Walton: I agree with what you’re saying, but here’s another problem, do you know asphalt? You don’t have a couple more months and they’ll be shutting the plants down. So now you’ll be waiting until the spring of next year.
John McBride: I think we can take the major holes we have and fix them.
Bob Garrison: How many big holes do we have?
Jacky Walton: Who’s going to check them?
Bob Garrison: Well you know where they are.
Jacky Walton: I make a motion that we use Myrtle Paving to continue with the paving using the remaining $9,000 from the budget.
John McBride: That’s not going to complete the work, though.
Bob Garrison: Well, we know that. You’re never going to complete the road paving work because….
John McBride: I want to take that $9,000 with a new contract, if we put it out for bids and do it in the right way, ok. Use some of that money with an engineering company so we correct these problems the right way.
Bob Garrison: John, you haven’t convinced me yet that you got anybody to come in here and do for $1.25 a square foot.
Johnny Huggins: We got a motion.
Bob Garrison: Second of all if you’re using some of the money for this engineering firm then you don’t have much money in terms now it’s not a $1.25 a square foot anymore. It’s $1.25-1.30 a square foot plus the engineering firm divided by that number of square feet. When we get all done, we probably talking about less than $1.00 a square foot and waiting 3 more months to do it.
Jason Barrier: I second Jacky’s motion.
Fred Thomas: I already seconded it. We got a motion and a second.
Bob Garrison: Alright, any other discussion?
Larry McMillin: For the sake of timing and everything I think this is the right way to go with this. I think if we prioritize the areas that we want done to get the worst ones done first and whenever he runs out of money that’s it. We have a new budget coming up give me some figures you think you need for next year and dollar amount and we will work it in. For expediency and the fact that the school buses are going to start coming in next week we need to get something done. We’ve waited all summer.
Bob Garrison: Alright, any other discussion?
Johnny Huggins: Ok, he just resigned. From Roads.
John McBride: Yep, I’m done. If I don’t get the help I need to do….
Bob Garrison: If you don’t get your way….. (Commotion)
Johnny Huggins: That’s ok, let’s not argue.
Bob Garrison: All those in favor of the motion presented by Jacky , signify by saying aye.
Motion passes 7 to 1.
A motion was made and seconded to release the remaining $9,000 to Myrtle Paving, Danny Lee to repair the remaining potholes. Motion was passed with 7 ayes and 1 no.
John McBride then resigned from the roads committee.
________________________________________________________________________________
What changed since last year? What caused Garrison, Barrier, McMillin, and President Walton to change their minds? Nothing except, I believe if you are John McBride, you aren't part of the fraternity of brothers, and you don't have a chance to be heard. Why? I think the rest are making back room deals. I'm not talking about money. I talking about, "you wash my arrogant heavy handed controlling BACK and I'll wash yours." That's why we have Garrison as Legal Chair, Walton, as President, and McBride left out of important meetings.
It is time to think about all of this. Anderson, Walton (John), and DeMarchi are running for Board, along with Taco Wijthoff. I'm doing research on their voting records. You'll be the judge as to whether they vote in the best interests of Wedgefield, or in the best interests of the fraternity brotherhood. Wijthoff, gets my vote.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)