Thursday, December 27, 2012
IT MAY BE IN THE "CARDS" FOR SOME, BUT NOT ALL
The Wedgefield Examiner was on vacation for a few days. We were unable to attend the WPA December Board Meeting. Thanks to The Wedgefield Times, the tape is available. There will be more to report about the meeting after the new year holiday.
I found it interesting, but not surprising, that once again we have different privileges as residents dependent on who is asking and which board member is responding. Our policy manual contains all the information and forms a resident who wishes to use the office for an activity, would need. During the December board meeting a discussion arose regarding a group of residents who play cards in the office on Monday evenings. They pick up a key and when they are finished they deposit it in the drop box. This advantage should be available to all residents, if they follow procedure.
The procedure is that you check with the office to see if the date is available, fill out the proper form, and pay a security deposit of $50. The deposit is returned if everything is left in good order.
The Monday night card players didn't have to pay a deposit. I'm not even sure they filled out the form. From the discussion, it appeared that Treasurer DeMarchi was aware of this. In fact, he felt the policy manual should be amended so that the board could decide who pays a deposit, or not. There was a lengthy discussion and the motion failed. Thankfully! More micro management, more twists of the rules, dependent on who is making the request? I hope not in the future, but it does appear to be the case for the Monday night card players.
If memory serves me correctly, there was another card group who wanted to play cards at the office. That group was told they could only play cards when the staff secretary was in the building and that they would have to leave when she did.
I don't know who the Monday night card players are. I don't begrudge them the opportunity to play cards at the office building. I do resent the fact that we aren't all treated with the same respect, opportunity, and rules. The problem here is bigger than who gets to play cards at the office. The problem is board members who use their power for special favors. The problem is administration by cherry picking, a yes basket for those who are favored, and a no basket for those who are not. The biggest problem is failure to follow established policy at the moment of decision, and then back tracking, attempting to set new policy to cover or justify a decision made earlier. This can't be called anything but POOR LEADERSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION.
I found it interesting, but not surprising, that once again we have different privileges as residents dependent on who is asking and which board member is responding. Our policy manual contains all the information and forms a resident who wishes to use the office for an activity, would need. During the December board meeting a discussion arose regarding a group of residents who play cards in the office on Monday evenings. They pick up a key and when they are finished they deposit it in the drop box. This advantage should be available to all residents, if they follow procedure.
The procedure is that you check with the office to see if the date is available, fill out the proper form, and pay a security deposit of $50. The deposit is returned if everything is left in good order.
The Monday night card players didn't have to pay a deposit. I'm not even sure they filled out the form. From the discussion, it appeared that Treasurer DeMarchi was aware of this. In fact, he felt the policy manual should be amended so that the board could decide who pays a deposit, or not. There was a lengthy discussion and the motion failed. Thankfully! More micro management, more twists of the rules, dependent on who is making the request? I hope not in the future, but it does appear to be the case for the Monday night card players.
If memory serves me correctly, there was another card group who wanted to play cards at the office. That group was told they could only play cards when the staff secretary was in the building and that they would have to leave when she did.
I don't know who the Monday night card players are. I don't begrudge them the opportunity to play cards at the office building. I do resent the fact that we aren't all treated with the same respect, opportunity, and rules. The problem here is bigger than who gets to play cards at the office. The problem is board members who use their power for special favors. The problem is administration by cherry picking, a yes basket for those who are favored, and a no basket for those who are not. The biggest problem is failure to follow established policy at the moment of decision, and then back tracking, attempting to set new policy to cover or justify a decision made earlier. This can't be called anything but POOR LEADERSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION.
JUDGE RULES ON DISMISSAL HEARING - THE ORDER
Judge Hyman, Jr. Circuit Judge signed the following order on December 11, 2012. The order was sent by an interested resident who is not named in any of the lawsuits.
PAGE ONE:
PAGE TWO:
PAGE THREE:
PAGE FOUR:
PAGE FIVE:
PAGE SIX:
PAGE SEVEN:
PAGE EIGHT:
PAGE NINE:
PAGE TEN:
PAGE ELEVEN:
PAGE ONE:
PAGE TWO:
Sunday, December 16, 2012
DRIVE SAFELY - BE VERY ALERT - THANK YOUR BOARD IF YOU RECEIVED A TICKET
Your big brother board has determined that they know how to keep you safe. A few months ago the board had rumble strips on their agenda. DeMarchi claimed that a resident had requested them. Since all requests, comments, etc., are to be in writing I visited the correspondence file. There weren't any requests for rumble strips. Rumor had it that they were DeMarchi's idea.
Last Friday there were a lot of "blue lights" on Wedgefield Rd. Saturday I attended a party hosted by two of Wedgefield's social groups. Three people at the party had been pulled over and ticketed. I believe the fines were $155.00 and 4 points on their license. One of them told me that the officer stated that the HOA board had called and wanted the police presence. When did the board decide this? It wasn't at the November meeting. I was there. We haven't had the December meeting yet. Could this have been the act of one or two board members using their status as board members? I don't know. Someone should ask. Will it be you?
Admittedly, like all communities, we have some speeders, those who fail to stop, etc. The three people I met last night at the party are not the speeders and tailgaters. They were all over 65 and are upstanding citizens in this community. I don't need to be protected from them. If I felt I was in danger I would contact the authorities on my own. I don't need the board playing big brother. In the least, IF THIS WAS A BOARD (full board vote) action, I would expect that as a resident, I would have been made aware before they brought the authorities into our association. This is just more of your board playing big brother because they appear to think that they know more about what is best for you and perhaps you aren't smart enough to act in your own behalf.
Last Friday there were a lot of "blue lights" on Wedgefield Rd. Saturday I attended a party hosted by two of Wedgefield's social groups. Three people at the party had been pulled over and ticketed. I believe the fines were $155.00 and 4 points on their license. One of them told me that the officer stated that the HOA board had called and wanted the police presence. When did the board decide this? It wasn't at the November meeting. I was there. We haven't had the December meeting yet. Could this have been the act of one or two board members using their status as board members? I don't know. Someone should ask. Will it be you?
Admittedly, like all communities, we have some speeders, those who fail to stop, etc. The three people I met last night at the party are not the speeders and tailgaters. They were all over 65 and are upstanding citizens in this community. I don't need to be protected from them. If I felt I was in danger I would contact the authorities on my own. I don't need the board playing big brother. In the least, IF THIS WAS A BOARD (full board vote) action, I would expect that as a resident, I would have been made aware before they brought the authorities into our association. This is just more of your board playing big brother because they appear to think that they know more about what is best for you and perhaps you aren't smart enough to act in your own behalf.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
SURPRISE! - THERE IS A REORGANIZATION MEETING TONIGHT. NO SURPRISE THAT YOU WEREN'T NOTIFIED. WHERE'S THE AGENDA FOR THE DECEMBER MEETING?
Why multiple titles for one article? Same old story from this board and I'm tired of it. I'm busy getting ready for the holidays. I'm tired of the deliberate actions of this board working to keep the residents out, failing to follow the advice of a board attorney, and general disregard for policy and procedure.
First, there is more than one board member carrying the news that the board has scheduled a reorganization meeting for tonight. I'm not going to take the time to find the legal opinion and print it again. I've printed it several times. Attorney "M", and you all know who he is, but I'm not printing his name. I don't particularly admire him. He was forced on us after the 2010 Recall, said to be brilliant and know Wedgefield's long history, and then was abused and fired when he gave opinions that didn't make some of the current board members case. He did issue a written opinion on closed board meetings, including reorganization meetings. He wrote that residents should be notified and allowed to attend. This board appears to intentionally ignore legal advice. What is the big secret about who will serve as officers? They'll tell residents when THEY ARE READY!
The board meeting agenda is suppose to be posted 7 days prior to the meeting. I've checked everywhere at the WPA site and haven't found it. Did I miss something? I'm anxious to see it. I'd like to see whether we will get a report on the canal survey, etc.
This "cohesive board is so busy trying to look that way in public, that they have no time to get the real work of the association done.
First, there is more than one board member carrying the news that the board has scheduled a reorganization meeting for tonight. I'm not going to take the time to find the legal opinion and print it again. I've printed it several times. Attorney "M", and you all know who he is, but I'm not printing his name. I don't particularly admire him. He was forced on us after the 2010 Recall, said to be brilliant and know Wedgefield's long history, and then was abused and fired when he gave opinions that didn't make some of the current board members case. He did issue a written opinion on closed board meetings, including reorganization meetings. He wrote that residents should be notified and allowed to attend. This board appears to intentionally ignore legal advice. What is the big secret about who will serve as officers? They'll tell residents when THEY ARE READY!
The board meeting agenda is suppose to be posted 7 days prior to the meeting. I've checked everywhere at the WPA site and haven't found it. Did I miss something? I'm anxious to see it. I'd like to see whether we will get a report on the canal survey, etc.
This "cohesive board is so busy trying to look that way in public, that they have no time to get the real work of the association done.
Monday, December 10, 2012
A WONDERFUL HOLIDAY TREE LIGHTING AND A BIG THANK YOU
It was less than two weeks, when all through Wedgefield, residents were wondering would holiday cheer ever come? Would we have a holiday tree? Would there be cookies, hot chocolate, or any beverages to raise in good cheer? Would the trusty red suited man appear on a golf cart for residents old and young? There wasn't a plan on the horizon, the board hadn't a clue.
The Women of Wedgefield and Wedgefield Boat Club said, "we'll get our tree up", and that they did.
A tree is just a tree without lights, food and drink, and a parade, many lamented. When what to their wondering ears and minds occurred, but a ring a ding, ding, of the WPA phone. Resident, Amy Brandon was calling to volunteer! She'd round up a crew to organize a parade, a Santa, and all that is required for "good cheer"! She'd bring member young families, more than ever before, and residents experienced in providing holiday cheer.
Cookies were baked, beverages assembled, and golf carts lined up, with jolly old Nick (John Walton) ready to appear. Holiday music would ring through air by golf cart and at the circle, provided by helper extraordinaire, Mike Davis. Board members, McMillan, Jacky Walton, and Cline, would help assemble a crew to hang lights, garlands, and bows. Arrangements were made to bring gifts for children, to be dispersed through the Salvation Army. Not an item was missed on her list!
Carts lining up at the landing - 17 carts!
Amy serving refreshments
Toys for the Salvation Army
Santa (John Walton)
Children gather with Santa - even triplets!
In all seriousness, our residents and Board, owe Amy a HUGE THANK YOU! I rode in a golf cart and attended what could have been a non event. Her willingness to step forward and coordinate, provided a beautiful Holiday Tree Lighting Event. There were more young participant families than I had ever seen. Wedgefield residents were brought together to welcome this beautiful holiday season. THANK YOU AMY.
NOTE: PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THIS IS WRITTEN FROM MY OBSERVATIONS. I HAVE NOT ASKED, NOR HAS AMY BRANDON REVIEWED THIS ARTICLE.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
RESIDENT JUDE DAVIS SHARES COMMUNICATIONS TO AND FROM THE BOARD
Madeline,
I sent the following e-mail to the Board on November 21 as a reminder of the questions that I asked at the Annual Meeting. I have subsequently resent this twice.
All,
1. Who pays the fee for the use of credit cards in paying for the annual assessment?
2. Who maintains the spoil site?
3. I would like someone to prepare for me a comparison of the year to date expenditures and budgeted amounts for the following committees:
Legal, Roads, Drainage, Grounds, Water Amenities
Jude Davis
To date, I have not had any reply from Edmund regarding these questions. I did receive the following from Adam Anderson concerning the maintenance of the spoil site. I asked a Board member if this reply was the official position of the Board, or just a personal view. He replied that, as far as he knew, this was a personal communication from Adam. Does Adam speak for all of the members of the Water Amenities Committee? Where is his base of support?
Jude,
I really don't understand your persistence in asking this question. The expense of maintaining the spoil site would be no different than the expense of dredging. The way the regime idea has been presented is the WPA would pay X amount of money to the canal regime and it would be up to US to spend that money as we desire. The balance of ANY expense including spoil site maintenance would fall on the canal regime.You seem unhappy with the split or balance in the proportion of money contributed to the regime from off-canal lots vs on-canal, but I really fail to see how someone living off-canal would really care if the spoil site is maintained. Its unfair to project that cost on the rest of the plantation when its people like you and I that benefit from it.Let's assume we could do a maintenance dredge including engineering cost, in a year or two for $400,000. Without any WPA help, that would be about $5000 per lot. Over time, if the WPA kicks in the proposed percentages, that number would be considerably less. Are you really going to tell me that's not a plan you could support? It's logical, simple, fair, and most of all allows us to control our own destiny concerning dredging. As you witnessed Saturday, the community's acceptance on individual assessments is not very positive. Unless someone challenges the assessment from 2009 in court and has the wherewithal to see it through, we will never know if it's valid or not. What any of us think is completely irrelevant. I would prefer to stay out of court, which would take years and tens of thousands of dollars, and instead try to resolve this ourselves.
I think you make a valid point that the spoil site could use some annual maintenance and it is something I intend to look into. I don't know if this is something a group of volunteers could go out and do a few times a year or if we need a contractor to come in and do it. I will get with John McBride and the rest of the water amenities committee and get you an answer asap.
Adam Anderson
I replied:
Adam,
Thank you for a response to my question about the spoil site. I persisted in asking the question BECAUSE no one had an answer for me. (I have asked this question many times).
The WPA recently spent over $7,000 to maintain WPA property behind someone’s house. Who, besides the individual property owner, cared! Why should someone on Swamp Fox care what the circle on King George looks like, or Duck Pond Road? The responsibility for maintaining WPA property is the WPA’s regardless of where it is located. Deliberately failing to maintain WPA property is negligence on the part of the Board.
I do not know what happened Saturday. On Friday, an e-mail was sent from a canal resident to Carol Zieske who then forwarded it to her group. This e-mail decried ANY money from ANYONE being spent on maintaining the canals and was totally against a sub-association. The animosity and disharmony that you hope to avoid is still active and present here. The people who caused the stink over the first dredging seem to be prepared to fight a sub-association. It is interesting as to the number of people on your cohesive Board whose names appeared on the list of recipients.
Perhaps you could explain to me your complete reversal on individual assessments and your support of a sub-association. Sub-associations have been looked into at least three times that I know of—including a serious push in the 80’s by Dick Meyers group who petitioned the Board to allow the canal lot owners to form their own association. The Board, on the advice of counsel, said no due to the legal logistics. Adam, I believe that you know that you can’t force someone to join the association and therefore can’t assess them any fees. Who pays for those canal lot residents who don’t join? Do you assess the members more? If I understand correctly, it was Bob Garrison who decreed that individual assessments were out and pushed the sub -association. Meanwhile, nothing is happening, no plan is in place, and no money is being put aside. Were you at the meeting—heavily attended by the cc—where both Janine Cline and Bob Garrison said that by paying off the loan in 2013, the annual assessment for 2014 would go back down to $450! Where does that leave your plan for $40-$50/ household from the WPA for canal maintenance? The permit clock is ticking--or was that the plan.
The minutes from the 2011 Annual Meeting state that individual assessments are legal! These minutes were approved without correction. You are completely incorrect about having to wait until someone challenges the individual assessment in court to determine if it is legal or not. Until such time AS IT IS CHALLENGED IN COURT, individual assessments are legal. It was Carol Zieske and her group—including Bob Garrison and Jason Barrier—who fought the individual assessment. No one on the canals did. It was Carol et al who said that individual assessments were part of the By-laws but only for small amounts of money. No where in the By-laws does it give an amount. The sub-association works only if you get 100% participation. It is not viable and you are spinning your wheels and wasting time.
I have received several e-mails from Adam where he makes it clear that the opinions he expresses are his alone. Really?! I thought that as a Board member he should be solicitous of the opinions of the membership. The survey SHOULD have come out BEFORE Adam decided that a sub-association was the way to go. The survey itself was a joke—no deadline for returns, just a yes/no question, no place to sign, etc. I urge all canal lot owners to return their survey immediately! Is Adam operating without the support of the canal lot owners, or is Bob Garrison’s sub-association idea the way to go?
No one complains about spending WPA money to maintain WPA property UNTIL that property involves the canals. Once again, I must caution the Board about negligence and discrimination. Has anyone run the idea of negligence and its pitfalls by the attorney?
Our By-laws give the Board tremendous power. They can do anything they want until such time as they are challenged in court. To my knowledge, the individual assessments of 2009 have not been adjudicated and until they are found to be illegal in a court of law, they are LEGAL.
No one has answered me regarding the credit card fee. Frankly, it should be in the contract. The amounts spent on various committees are important. Each chair needs to know, and should be keeping track, of the amount spent versus the amount budgeted.
As I look at the October financials, I immediately had several questions:
Who is our resident manager? We are paying over $18,000 annually for one as well as an additional $25,000 for a management company?
Why was $10,000 budgeted for irrigation repair?
What are safety inspections?
Why did we budget $2200 for annual evaluations?
Our past due amounts are over $100,000 yet we spent over $89,000 on forgiveness of debt. Does someone have a clue?
It is a shame that these questions, like most of my other questions will find their way into the dead question box. This box is supported by apathy—on the part of the Board and the membership.
I sent the following e-mail to the Board on November 21 as a reminder of the questions that I asked at the Annual Meeting. I have subsequently resent this twice.
All,
1. Who pays the fee for the use of credit cards in paying for the annual assessment?
2. Who maintains the spoil site?
3. I would like someone to prepare for me a comparison of the year to date expenditures and budgeted amounts for the following committees:
Jude Davis
To date, I have not had any reply from Edmund regarding these questions. I did receive the following from Adam Anderson concerning the maintenance of the spoil site. I asked a Board member if this reply was the official position of the Board, or just a personal view. He replied that, as far as he knew, this was a personal communication from Adam. Does Adam speak for all of the members of the Water Amenities Committee? Where is his base of support?
Jude,
I really don't understand your persistence in asking this question. The expense of maintaining the spoil site would be no different than the expense of dredging. The way the regime idea has been presented is the WPA would pay X amount of money to the canal regime and it would be up to US to spend that money as we desire. The balance of ANY expense including spoil site maintenance would fall on the canal regime.You seem unhappy with the split or balance in the proportion of money contributed to the regime from off-canal lots vs on-canal, but I really fail to see how someone living off-canal would really care if the spoil site is maintained. Its unfair to project that cost on the rest of the plantation when its people like you and I that benefit from it.Let's assume we could do a maintenance dredge including engineering cost, in a year or two for $400,000. Without any WPA help, that would be about $5000 per lot. Over time, if the WPA kicks in the proposed percentages, that number would be considerably less. Are you really going to tell me that's not a plan you could support? It's logical, simple, fair, and most of all allows us to control our own destiny concerning dredging. As you witnessed Saturday, the community's acceptance on individual assessments is not very positive. Unless someone challenges the assessment from 2009 in court and has the wherewithal to see it through, we will never know if it's valid or not. What any of us think is completely irrelevant. I would prefer to stay out of court, which would take years and tens of thousands of dollars, and instead try to resolve this ourselves.
I think you make a valid point that the spoil site could use some annual maintenance and it is something I intend to look into. I don't know if this is something a group of volunteers could go out and do a few times a year or if we need a contractor to come in and do it. I will get with John McBride and the rest of the water amenities committee and get you an answer asap.
Adam Anderson
I replied:
Adam,
Thank you for a response to my question about the spoil site. I persisted in asking the question BECAUSE no one had an answer for me. (I have asked this question many times).
The WPA recently spent over $7,000 to maintain WPA property behind someone’s house. Who, besides the individual property owner, cared! Why should someone on Swamp Fox care what the circle on King George looks like, or Duck Pond Road? The responsibility for maintaining WPA property is the WPA’s regardless of where it is located. Deliberately failing to maintain WPA property is negligence on the part of the Board.
I do not know what happened Saturday. On Friday, an e-mail was sent from a canal resident to Carol Zieske who then forwarded it to her group. This e-mail decried ANY money from ANYONE being spent on maintaining the canals and was totally against a sub-association. The animosity and disharmony that you hope to avoid is still active and present here. The people who caused the stink over the first dredging seem to be prepared to fight a sub-association. It is interesting as to the number of people on your cohesive Board whose names appeared on the list of recipients.
Perhaps you could explain to me your complete reversal on individual assessments and your support of a sub-association. Sub-associations have been looked into at least three times that I know of—including a serious push in the 80’s by Dick Meyers group who petitioned the Board to allow the canal lot owners to form their own association. The Board, on the advice of counsel, said no due to the legal logistics. Adam, I believe that you know that you can’t force someone to join the association and therefore can’t assess them any fees. Who pays for those canal lot residents who don’t join? Do you assess the members more? If I understand correctly, it was Bob Garrison who decreed that individual assessments were out and pushed the sub -association. Meanwhile, nothing is happening, no plan is in place, and no money is being put aside. Were you at the meeting—heavily attended by the cc—where both Janine Cline and Bob Garrison said that by paying off the loan in 2013, the annual assessment for 2014 would go back down to $450! Where does that leave your plan for $40-$50/ household from the WPA for canal maintenance? The permit clock is ticking--or was that the plan.
The minutes from the 2011 Annual Meeting state that individual assessments are legal! These minutes were approved without correction. You are completely incorrect about having to wait until someone challenges the individual assessment in court to determine if it is legal or not. Until such time AS IT IS CHALLENGED IN COURT, individual assessments are legal. It was Carol Zieske and her group—including Bob Garrison and Jason Barrier—who fought the individual assessment. No one on the canals did. It was Carol et al who said that individual assessments were part of the By-laws but only for small amounts of money. No where in the By-laws does it give an amount. The sub-association works only if you get 100% participation. It is not viable and you are spinning your wheels and wasting time.
I have received several e-mails from Adam where he makes it clear that the opinions he expresses are his alone. Really?! I thought that as a Board member he should be solicitous of the opinions of the membership. The survey SHOULD have come out BEFORE Adam decided that a sub-association was the way to go. The survey itself was a joke—no deadline for returns, just a yes/no question, no place to sign, etc. I urge all canal lot owners to return their survey immediately! Is Adam operating without the support of the canal lot owners, or is Bob Garrison’s sub-association idea the way to go?
No one complains about spending WPA money to maintain WPA property UNTIL that property involves the canals. Once again, I must caution the Board about negligence and discrimination. Has anyone run the idea of negligence and its pitfalls by the attorney?
Our By-laws give the Board tremendous power. They can do anything they want until such time as they are challenged in court. To my knowledge, the individual assessments of 2009 have not been adjudicated and until they are found to be illegal in a court of law, they are LEGAL.
No one has answered me regarding the credit card fee. Frankly, it should be in the contract. The amounts spent on various committees are important. Each chair needs to know, and should be keeping track, of the amount spent versus the amount budgeted.
As I look at the October financials, I immediately had several questions:
Who is our resident manager? We are paying over $18,000 annually for one as well as an additional $25,000 for a management company?
Why was $10,000 budgeted for irrigation repair?
What are safety inspections?
Why did we budget $2200 for annual evaluations?
Our past due amounts are over $100,000 yet we spent over $89,000 on forgiveness of debt. Does someone have a clue?
It is a shame that these questions, like most of my other questions will find their way into the dead question box. This box is supported by apathy—on the part of the Board and the membership.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
WAITING FOR AN ANNOUNCEMENT
ARTICLE VII, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Section 6, Organizational Meeting, of the WPA By-Laws states, "The first meeting of each Board of Directors newly elected by the members shall be held at such a place and time as shall be fixed by the Directors and as soon following the Annual Meeting as is practicable provided a quorum is present. No further notice of the meeting shall be necessary."
It has been over two weeks since the annual meeting and I've been checking the WPA website for an announcement notifying the membership of the 2013 WPA Board Officers. So far it hasn't appeared. I am unsure whether they had the meeting and failed to notify the membership, determined somehow that the officers would remain the same, or they just haven't held the meeting. Most boards have held the organization meeting within a few days of the election.
I'm hoping that the boards silence isn't an indication that the officer positions will remain the same. While I'm interested in all of the positions, I'm particularly interested in the president. I'm hoping for a change. Originally, I was a strong supporter of Jacky Walton. When the 2011 Board was attempting to remove him as president I, along with many others gathered to attend the meetings. If you recall, we'd get there and several of the board members wouldn't enter, cancelled the meeting, and once met in the parking lot to avoid the residents watching their underhanded tactics. The issue was that the president has the privilege of naming committee chairs. Walton had named McBride as Legal Chair. Five of the board seats were held by Concerned Citizens who were in the middle of the lawsuit brought by Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas. One of the board members said , "it was all about legal." Walton wouldn't remove McBride and replace him with one of the Concerned Citizen board members. They removed Walton and made Wilson president.
The 2012 board made Walton president. He named Garrison as Legal Chair. Since then Garrison has added a resident Concerned Citizen to the committee. We can't see legal files. We can't view legal invoices. We often receive critical legal opinions verbally. Some sources say we have over $5,000 of unapproved legal expenses that no one will take issue with. None of this is good.
Consider the fact that Walton had named Barrier as Community Liaison. He rarely, I mean rarely has a report and residents have not had questions answered in months (many, many). He also named John Walton chair of communications which includes welcome committee, special events like the holiday lighting. There haven't been reports there either. 24 families have not been welcomed over a long period of time.
Based on performance, I don't know who could support Walton as president. Will your board? We'll just have to keep watching for a posting. Maybe the announcement hold up is due to the fact that the board has no confidence in who they selected, or it is slim pickings to find officer material amongst this group.
It has been over two weeks since the annual meeting and I've been checking the WPA website for an announcement notifying the membership of the 2013 WPA Board Officers. So far it hasn't appeared. I am unsure whether they had the meeting and failed to notify the membership, determined somehow that the officers would remain the same, or they just haven't held the meeting. Most boards have held the organization meeting within a few days of the election.
I'm hoping that the boards silence isn't an indication that the officer positions will remain the same. While I'm interested in all of the positions, I'm particularly interested in the president. I'm hoping for a change. Originally, I was a strong supporter of Jacky Walton. When the 2011 Board was attempting to remove him as president I, along with many others gathered to attend the meetings. If you recall, we'd get there and several of the board members wouldn't enter, cancelled the meeting, and once met in the parking lot to avoid the residents watching their underhanded tactics. The issue was that the president has the privilege of naming committee chairs. Walton had named McBride as Legal Chair. Five of the board seats were held by Concerned Citizens who were in the middle of the lawsuit brought by Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas. One of the board members said , "it was all about legal." Walton wouldn't remove McBride and replace him with one of the Concerned Citizen board members. They removed Walton and made Wilson president.
The 2012 board made Walton president. He named Garrison as Legal Chair. Since then Garrison has added a resident Concerned Citizen to the committee. We can't see legal files. We can't view legal invoices. We often receive critical legal opinions verbally. Some sources say we have over $5,000 of unapproved legal expenses that no one will take issue with. None of this is good.
Consider the fact that Walton had named Barrier as Community Liaison. He rarely, I mean rarely has a report and residents have not had questions answered in months (many, many). He also named John Walton chair of communications which includes welcome committee, special events like the holiday lighting. There haven't been reports there either. 24 families have not been welcomed over a long period of time.
Based on performance, I don't know who could support Walton as president. Will your board? We'll just have to keep watching for a posting. Maybe the announcement hold up is due to the fact that the board has no confidence in who they selected, or it is slim pickings to find officer material amongst this group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)