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 Wedgefield Examiner reported on the reserve study contract, covered by Jacky Walton in his president's report. We won't start at the beginning. If you haven't read "Part I, The January 15th WPA Board Meeting, posted on The Wedgefield Examiner on Jan. 17, you might want to go back and read it.
There is new, not so great information. I wrote the board and requested the opportunity to review the contract, proposals, and RFP (request for proposal). I was provided the contract, and the responses to the RFP. The RFP was not in the file. I was told that William Douglas sent out the RFP and the board didn't have it. This is just the beginning of a list of problems that have surfaced since the January 15 board meeting.
Why is it a problem? When did your board verify for themselves that the RFP detailed all the necessary specifications and information, for our project? Remember, we have NEVER, in all these years had a reserve study conducted. Additionally, one board set aside $10,000 for a reserve study that was ignored by this board. I believe they intend to spend $4,000. Our first reserve study will literally lay the foundation for our reserves. It is always important for this process to be competitive, but this isn't the time to go cheap, if it impacts credible results. Is cost, not enough money, why they didn't really want to know what the RFP, representing our needs, looked like? You get what you pay for, and the time you are willing to invest to see that your project is done correctly, start to finish. It would be the same as you asking a contractor to bid to build something, and not knowing what specs he was using to bid. Things only go from bad, to worse.
I reviewed what I was told was the contract. I do believe they believed that to be truthful at the time. First, the contract appeared to be "off the shelf". That was disturbing because we haven't ever had a reserve study and your board is going to assign our reserves according to the findings. Do they want the study results to be so benign that they can do what they want? Remember about a year ago, we were told that if the board didn't assign reserves we would face problems, with either the audit, or our taxes. I don't recall which, but I believe it was a set up to use one board member's figures. I've reviewed the last audit administrative report and it wasn't mentioned. We've been paying taxes for years, and it wasn't mentioned in the past. What we didn't know at the time was, almost immediately, the board began to use this formula to distribute funds into reserves, monthly. There was no real foundation to the appropriations, a lame excuse, but now we have reserves assigned accordingly.
I couldn't have a copy of the contract but I did read through it. I did hand copy a portion of a clause that concerned me.
"(CONTRACTOR - I won't name) will assume, unless otherwise advised by client, that all reserve assets have been designated and constructed properly and each estimated useful life will approximate that of the norm per industry...." In signing that contract your board lied on paper, and violated the contract. The WPA doesn't have any of that. No former reserve study, as a building block. No experts EVER out here to assign the life of anything! Our reserves were assigned, without realistic formula or backup. They may have been based on a study by board members of past expense, but what is that worth? It doesn't speak to life of asset, or have a solid foundation. Take roads for instance. In 2011, we spent almost $30,000 on an unlicensed, uninsured, contractor. Many on this board justified it, and knowingly let it move forward. How would you like to present that?
I read through and then ran into a board member in the office. I asked if I was correct in stating that any assets that didn't have a proper reserve study background and foundation, would cost us beyond the contract, if the vendor had to create that information? The board member said that was how he read it. Basically, we don't have anything solid on any of our assets. I don't believe we have a single asset, that has the appropriate documentation.
Since my visit, more information has come my way, from two different, credible sources. When I can't, or won't provide documents, The Wedgefield Examiner calls the information - RUMOR. That is what we'll call it for now. It is credible information. First, the contract President Walton signed, is not the contract the board approved. Next, a board member stopped payment on the check written to the contractor. They are going to have to start again. Am I concerned? YES!!!! I'm afraid we are headed to another half baked job!
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Monday, January 28, 2013
PART IV - THE JANUARY 15 WPA BOARD, THE LEGAL REPORT - QUESTIONS ASKED, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED and SO MUCH MORE!!
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'll provide information in overview, and at times transcription, to the best of my ability. I encourage you to listen to the tape provided at The Wedgefield Times. The Legal Report begins at 18.28 minutes into the tape.
Garrison starts his report stating that there aren't any new things, but ongoing. The foreclosure proceedings are actually making progress. Several have been filed for judgement. Payment plans are being worked out. There are some that we won't be able to collect on. One has a first and second mortgage and is hopefully for sale. He reminds the board that the WPA is in third position and that leaves us "without a whole lot of juice".
It appears that the report is at an end, but McBride has a question. The following is transcription to the best of my ability. I encourage you to listen to the tape.
TRANSCRIPTION:
McBride: I've got a question. A couple of people have an attorney to question the $5,000 individual assessment. That's in court. Where is that?
Garrison: This is an out growth of the action that the WPA filed against the individuals who have not paid anything towards those $5,000 assessments. One of those has been settled by default judgement which I mentioned several months ago. We had one and I was in the process of executing that judgement to see if we can't squeeze the money out of it and get paid. The other two having that filed. I don't know if word is objection is right, but why have hired an attorney? They have moved those two cases from magistrate's court to circuit court. At this particular point there is going to be a hearing on this at some point by a special referee to adjudicate this. No date has been set for that hearing.
McBride asks a question - not quite able to hear it.
Garrison: I've been told that the hearing is probably in a time frame that is 6-8 weeks before it will happen, but with most things legal .. that would probably be hugely optimistic. I don't know for sure.
McBride: You said we could maybe squeeze that what are you talking about there?
Garrison: Once you have a judgement, than the next step is an execution of that judgement and what is going to happen. In that case there will be a hearing scheduled before Judge Crosley (unsure of proper spelling), who in an effort to collect that back...that amount that's due. Now precisely what you can execute in terms...that depends on what the judge elects to do. I can't answer that in terms of what is going to happen...in terms of what the procedure will be when it get to the judge...My experience with it is theoretically you can...a judge can force to sell assets in order to satisfy judgement. Whether that happens in real life or how often..is something to question. ....Whole point is pressure is ...the defendant, whoever it is, finds out that fighting it, is going to cost him money...at some point probably more than ..to paying the money would be. That's kind of what you're hoping for. You're going to come to a point where you're going to...in general that paying the bill is going to cost less than fighting the bill. Particularly in the case of default...had chance to challenge and didn''t. So there's not much to challenge there. Just about how the court decides to extract the money.
McBride: When you extract the money...also court costs?
Garrison: I don't know the answer to that John. Typically when you file something like that is for ..plus court. Whether that will happen in this case and whether you get any at all I can't answer.
McBride: When you file these judgements...about what would that cost us?
DeMarchi: You talking about foreclosures, or you talking about...for the canal lot situation?
McBride: Well, talk about both. We have costs in both right?
Garrison: In case of fore closers, when these monies are collected the legal fees are included. As for...others cost of filing in magistrates court is 80 bucks a case. Now I don't recall off the top of my head ...I'd have to back and look at Mr.Moody's bills, from 5 or 6 months ago, or longer to see what specifically he charged us for filing those but that was done, again, at least 6 months ago. Court costs itself is 80 bucks a unit.
McBride: But all of this stuff when we look at it together...budget over estimate.
Garrison: Absolutely, what dang near $5,000 of that was an ARC issue. That got us zero money. This stuff in terms of foreclosures and what has been collected already and what's on board to collect is at least revenue generating. In my mind from a legal stand point, the real waste of money has been having to fight things that deal with the ARC violation, where we got people who just don't care about following the rules. That is the stuff that gets hugely expensive and has no revenue redeeming value, other than evidently we get some one to do sort of the right thing. Was it worth it? Well it had to be done. We're at some where around 14 grand for the year in legal expenses. Very little of that was on anything other than collecting money or fighting ARC, with the exception of a couple questions that the board wanted the attorney to answer, which were relatively minimal. That's where the majority of money went.
DeMarchi: I have one final question Bob. On these settlements that are negotiated by the attorney, where they are putting so much down and they are going to pay it over a year. When he gets these funds and he will send that to us, but are they being instructed to send that money to William Douglas, and in the case of a prior situation where they didn't do that we need to instruct Mr. Moody's office to make sure those checks are forwarded to William.
Garrison: That has been done. I told him that. (Some minor discussion follows - not provided here.
McBride: I know in the case of my committee and John's committee, Larry's committee, other committees, we can spend no more - less than $200 without getting prior board approval. Is your committee also subject o that rule?
Garrison: I would suspect so. That's why everything we talk about came here first. We didn't go off and do this ARC battle without you being aware of what it was and some approximation of what it was going to cost. We...institute 22 foreclosures without the board being aware of the fact that A, there were 22 foreclosures, B - it was approved to proceed.
McBride: But we didn't know costs.
Garrison: Well I think we knew approximate cost.
President Walton: Alright please move on.
COMMENTS:
Why bother with the transcription of this report? There are several important reasons. One other reason popped up as I made a recent visit to examine records in the WPA office. First things first. There are questions to be asked and answered.
First, you have to give Garrison credit for seeming to be well versed in his discussion. HE HAS COMPLETE CONCRETE INFORMATION. Second, you have to give McBride his due for questioning. Why? Every board member should get the information they need to stay abreast of what is happening, and to secure information that will help them form opinions on future votes. There shouldn't be any "sacred" information amongst board members. We elected them as individuals to use their individual knowledge to vote in behalf of us. They need complete information.
Initially, Garrison's report was very brief. It is only through McBride's questions that the board and membership receive a clear picture regarding legal affairs and their related expenses. When McBride asks the question regarding related expenses and approval, it is a reasonable question. Garrison is correct in saying that the board's approval was sought before they took action. Garrison did the correct thing. In all the areas of approval and related expenses, legal almost stands alone. Why? Because you can hire a lawyer, taking advice toward possible out come and expense, but the legal system has it's own twists and turns. We all know that.
There is more gleamed from Garrison's extended report. Garrison speaks to residents not willing to do the right thing. I believe that is a problem caused by the board in general, and in at least one instance, promoted by Garrison himself. This is one time he may be living with the ramifications of some of his own actions. The board is responsible for the general disregard to ARC violations. Very little has been done to keep our neighborhood sustained within the boundaries of the ARC requirements. The requirements are concise. The oversight of them is not. The property owner who cost the association approximately $5,000 in legal expenses, had two problems. One was a curb that abutted the road. The second was a fence. In the end the curb was removed but the fence stayed. Why? We have more than a few fences that don't meet the requirements and the property owner was smart enough to present them. Frankly, I'm surprised he had to remove the curb. There are other curb like structures in Wedgefield. When are they going to be removed? In general, while we may not like ARC when we want to do, what we want to do, it is intended to keep a quality neighborhood. Recently, a resident wrote the board about a property that was not being maintained. Nothing happened for a long period of time. The reporting resident stayed with it. Finally, a board member told them that the property wasn't much worse than a lot of properties here! Really, we depend on ARC and our board to keep this a quality community. That's what we thought we were buying into. No wonder there is a disrespect, disregard, for the ARC rules.
As to resident disrespect for paying assessments, I suggest to you that Garrison is partially responsible, and now has to help clean up a mess, he may have helped to create. What do I mean? Well, think about it. It was Garrison and one of his legal committee members, Bob Nichols, who authored a letter to every resident telling them to hold their $175 added assessments, in an escrow account. He advised residents to circumvent the board's right to assess and their then collection policy. Just maybe some of these collections are on people who followed his advice. Once again, I ask President Walton how he could have APPOINTED Garrison as Legal Chair. I ask the entire board how they could have raised their hands and allowed Bob Nichols to sit on the Legal Committee. In the end, your board is responsible for some of the lax attitude of residents regarding assessments. We won't spend a lot of time on it, because The Wedgefield Examiner has covered the subject already, but when your board issues willy nilly assessments, this is what they get. I received an assessment billing due the end of January. At the January meeting, your board voted to stop William Douglas from sending late notices out on Feb. 5th, so they would have time for a second policy change reading to extend late notices and fees, on those who fail to pay by the end of January, until the first of March. How serious are they about collecting assessments?
How does a visit to the office connect to any of this? If you believe that each board member should have complete information, then the visit, and what I observed and heard, are pertinent. While I was reviewing files a board member came in and asked to see the complete legal file and the related invoice file. He appeared to review the files and then mentioned to the staff secretary that there seemed to be a hole (my words) in the invoice file - a gap. She told him that she puts every invoice that she receives into the file, but she doesn't receive all of them at the office. As I observed the interaction, it appeared that the two didn't know where the rest were sent. The board member had a right to review all of the information. Where are the invoices going? How does a committee chair sign off on the expense, and the documents not reside in the office?
Second, I was told by a board member who shall remain unnamed that he was told to stay out of Water Amenities business, by another board member, when he asked questions. The board member making the request had every right to secure the information.
Finally, as a resident, I requested the opportunity to review the Correspondence File. Usually, when I make this request, I ask to see at least the last six months. I forgot to stipulate this time. I was presented with a file that pretty much started on Jan. 1, 2013. You know, some days you just let it slide until next time. Another resident had visited the office with a similar request and questioned why just 2013? She was told a board member had the other correspondence file stored in the attic. Why? It may be the appropriate place to put it. Most residents haven't been answered for months. What do you do with items that you don't intend to use or act on? You put them in the attic. You are not a business. There is unfinished business in the 2012 file and it belongs in the office.
This all comes down to territorial board members, not all, but most, grabbing hold of power. Will you let them continue to abuse others on the board, abuse your right to know, or will you write the board, go see for yourself, or ask questions, during the resident comment section of the monthly board meetings?
I'll provide information in overview, and at times transcription, to the best of my ability. I encourage you to listen to the tape provided at The Wedgefield Times. The Legal Report begins at 18.28 minutes into the tape.
Garrison starts his report stating that there aren't any new things, but ongoing. The foreclosure proceedings are actually making progress. Several have been filed for judgement. Payment plans are being worked out. There are some that we won't be able to collect on. One has a first and second mortgage and is hopefully for sale. He reminds the board that the WPA is in third position and that leaves us "without a whole lot of juice".
It appears that the report is at an end, but McBride has a question. The following is transcription to the best of my ability. I encourage you to listen to the tape.
TRANSCRIPTION:
McBride: I've got a question. A couple of people have an attorney to question the $5,000 individual assessment. That's in court. Where is that?
Garrison: This is an out growth of the action that the WPA filed against the individuals who have not paid anything towards those $5,000 assessments. One of those has been settled by default judgement which I mentioned several months ago. We had one and I was in the process of executing that judgement to see if we can't squeeze the money out of it and get paid. The other two having that filed. I don't know if word is objection is right, but why have hired an attorney? They have moved those two cases from magistrate's court to circuit court. At this particular point there is going to be a hearing on this at some point by a special referee to adjudicate this. No date has been set for that hearing.
McBride asks a question - not quite able to hear it.
Garrison: I've been told that the hearing is probably in a time frame that is 6-8 weeks before it will happen, but with most things legal .. that would probably be hugely optimistic. I don't know for sure.
McBride: You said we could maybe squeeze that what are you talking about there?
Garrison: Once you have a judgement, than the next step is an execution of that judgement and what is going to happen. In that case there will be a hearing scheduled before Judge Crosley (unsure of proper spelling), who in an effort to collect that back...that amount that's due. Now precisely what you can execute in terms...that depends on what the judge elects to do. I can't answer that in terms of what is going to happen...in terms of what the procedure will be when it get to the judge...My experience with it is theoretically you can...a judge can force to sell assets in order to satisfy judgement. Whether that happens in real life or how often..is something to question. ....Whole point is pressure is ...the defendant, whoever it is, finds out that fighting it, is going to cost him money...at some point probably more than ..to paying the money would be. That's kind of what you're hoping for. You're going to come to a point where you're going to...in general that paying the bill is going to cost less than fighting the bill. Particularly in the case of default...had chance to challenge and didn''t. So there's not much to challenge there. Just about how the court decides to extract the money.
McBride: When you extract the money...also court costs?
Garrison: I don't know the answer to that John. Typically when you file something like that is for ..plus court. Whether that will happen in this case and whether you get any at all I can't answer.
McBride: When you file these judgements...about what would that cost us?
DeMarchi: You talking about foreclosures, or you talking about...for the canal lot situation?
McBride: Well, talk about both. We have costs in both right?
Garrison: In case of fore closers, when these monies are collected the legal fees are included. As for...others cost of filing in magistrates court is 80 bucks a case. Now I don't recall off the top of my head ...I'd have to back and look at Mr.Moody's bills, from 5 or 6 months ago, or longer to see what specifically he charged us for filing those but that was done, again, at least 6 months ago. Court costs itself is 80 bucks a unit.
McBride: But all of this stuff when we look at it together...budget over estimate.
Garrison: Absolutely, what dang near $5,000 of that was an ARC issue. That got us zero money. This stuff in terms of foreclosures and what has been collected already and what's on board to collect is at least revenue generating. In my mind from a legal stand point, the real waste of money has been having to fight things that deal with the ARC violation, where we got people who just don't care about following the rules. That is the stuff that gets hugely expensive and has no revenue redeeming value, other than evidently we get some one to do sort of the right thing. Was it worth it? Well it had to be done. We're at some where around 14 grand for the year in legal expenses. Very little of that was on anything other than collecting money or fighting ARC, with the exception of a couple questions that the board wanted the attorney to answer, which were relatively minimal. That's where the majority of money went.
DeMarchi: I have one final question Bob. On these settlements that are negotiated by the attorney, where they are putting so much down and they are going to pay it over a year. When he gets these funds and he will send that to us, but are they being instructed to send that money to William Douglas, and in the case of a prior situation where they didn't do that we need to instruct Mr. Moody's office to make sure those checks are forwarded to William.
Garrison: That has been done. I told him that. (Some minor discussion follows - not provided here.
McBride: I know in the case of my committee and John's committee, Larry's committee, other committees, we can spend no more - less than $200 without getting prior board approval. Is your committee also subject o that rule?
Garrison: I would suspect so. That's why everything we talk about came here first. We didn't go off and do this ARC battle without you being aware of what it was and some approximation of what it was going to cost. We...institute 22 foreclosures without the board being aware of the fact that A, there were 22 foreclosures, B - it was approved to proceed.
McBride: But we didn't know costs.
Garrison: Well I think we knew approximate cost.
President Walton: Alright please move on.
COMMENTS:
Why bother with the transcription of this report? There are several important reasons. One other reason popped up as I made a recent visit to examine records in the WPA office. First things first. There are questions to be asked and answered.
First, you have to give Garrison credit for seeming to be well versed in his discussion. HE HAS COMPLETE CONCRETE INFORMATION. Second, you have to give McBride his due for questioning. Why? Every board member should get the information they need to stay abreast of what is happening, and to secure information that will help them form opinions on future votes. There shouldn't be any "sacred" information amongst board members. We elected them as individuals to use their individual knowledge to vote in behalf of us. They need complete information.
Initially, Garrison's report was very brief. It is only through McBride's questions that the board and membership receive a clear picture regarding legal affairs and their related expenses. When McBride asks the question regarding related expenses and approval, it is a reasonable question. Garrison is correct in saying that the board's approval was sought before they took action. Garrison did the correct thing. In all the areas of approval and related expenses, legal almost stands alone. Why? Because you can hire a lawyer, taking advice toward possible out come and expense, but the legal system has it's own twists and turns. We all know that.
There is more gleamed from Garrison's extended report. Garrison speaks to residents not willing to do the right thing. I believe that is a problem caused by the board in general, and in at least one instance, promoted by Garrison himself. This is one time he may be living with the ramifications of some of his own actions. The board is responsible for the general disregard to ARC violations. Very little has been done to keep our neighborhood sustained within the boundaries of the ARC requirements. The requirements are concise. The oversight of them is not. The property owner who cost the association approximately $5,000 in legal expenses, had two problems. One was a curb that abutted the road. The second was a fence. In the end the curb was removed but the fence stayed. Why? We have more than a few fences that don't meet the requirements and the property owner was smart enough to present them. Frankly, I'm surprised he had to remove the curb. There are other curb like structures in Wedgefield. When are they going to be removed? In general, while we may not like ARC when we want to do, what we want to do, it is intended to keep a quality neighborhood. Recently, a resident wrote the board about a property that was not being maintained. Nothing happened for a long period of time. The reporting resident stayed with it. Finally, a board member told them that the property wasn't much worse than a lot of properties here! Really, we depend on ARC and our board to keep this a quality community. That's what we thought we were buying into. No wonder there is a disrespect, disregard, for the ARC rules.
As to resident disrespect for paying assessments, I suggest to you that Garrison is partially responsible, and now has to help clean up a mess, he may have helped to create. What do I mean? Well, think about it. It was Garrison and one of his legal committee members, Bob Nichols, who authored a letter to every resident telling them to hold their $175 added assessments, in an escrow account. He advised residents to circumvent the board's right to assess and their then collection policy. Just maybe some of these collections are on people who followed his advice. Once again, I ask President Walton how he could have APPOINTED Garrison as Legal Chair. I ask the entire board how they could have raised their hands and allowed Bob Nichols to sit on the Legal Committee. In the end, your board is responsible for some of the lax attitude of residents regarding assessments. We won't spend a lot of time on it, because The Wedgefield Examiner has covered the subject already, but when your board issues willy nilly assessments, this is what they get. I received an assessment billing due the end of January. At the January meeting, your board voted to stop William Douglas from sending late notices out on Feb. 5th, so they would have time for a second policy change reading to extend late notices and fees, on those who fail to pay by the end of January, until the first of March. How serious are they about collecting assessments?
How does a visit to the office connect to any of this? If you believe that each board member should have complete information, then the visit, and what I observed and heard, are pertinent. While I was reviewing files a board member came in and asked to see the complete legal file and the related invoice file. He appeared to review the files and then mentioned to the staff secretary that there seemed to be a hole (my words) in the invoice file - a gap. She told him that she puts every invoice that she receives into the file, but she doesn't receive all of them at the office. As I observed the interaction, it appeared that the two didn't know where the rest were sent. The board member had a right to review all of the information. Where are the invoices going? How does a committee chair sign off on the expense, and the documents not reside in the office?
Second, I was told by a board member who shall remain unnamed that he was told to stay out of Water Amenities business, by another board member, when he asked questions. The board member making the request had every right to secure the information.
Finally, as a resident, I requested the opportunity to review the Correspondence File. Usually, when I make this request, I ask to see at least the last six months. I forgot to stipulate this time. I was presented with a file that pretty much started on Jan. 1, 2013. You know, some days you just let it slide until next time. Another resident had visited the office with a similar request and questioned why just 2013? She was told a board member had the other correspondence file stored in the attic. Why? It may be the appropriate place to put it. Most residents haven't been answered for months. What do you do with items that you don't intend to use or act on? You put them in the attic. You are not a business. There is unfinished business in the 2012 file and it belongs in the office.
This all comes down to territorial board members, not all, but most, grabbing hold of power. Will you let them continue to abuse others on the board, abuse your right to know, or will you write the board, go see for yourself, or ask questions, during the resident comment section of the monthly board meetings?
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
PART III- THE JANUARY 15 WPA BOARD MEETING - GROUNDS AND WATER AMENITIES?? HOW CAN THAT BE?
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.
We'll start at the beginning with the Water Amenities Report. There is a connection with the Grounds Report, in fact quite an unusual one. You'll decide if it is bizarre as we move through the information. CONSISTENCY regarding the twists and moves of this board will also be questioned.
John Walton, new Water Amenities chair, gave the report. The second dock project is complete and some work was being done on the landing road. Walton reported that the first thing his committee would like to do, was to continue on the landing project by replacing the old dock. In fact he stated that there was a contract in each board member's packet. All permits were in place. They would utilize the same contractor that just completed work on the second dock.
Garrison asks if the committee feels that the existing dock has come to the end of its useful life, or could repair, replace some portions, etc., be considered. He further stated that the committee needed more bids.
The discussion indicated that the committee did not view the dock as repairable. But wait, the recommendation was to relocate the old dock. Garrison wants to know if the dock can't be repaired, why would it be relocated anywhere? Walton responds that it could be used for some projects on the canals.
In the end, the project was stalled until more bids could be secured.
Second, we'll throw in McMilllin's Grounds Report (Printed as read and presented on the WPA website.
We'll start at the beginning with the Water Amenities Report. There is a connection with the Grounds Report, in fact quite an unusual one. You'll decide if it is bizarre as we move through the information. CONSISTENCY regarding the twists and moves of this board will also be questioned.
John Walton, new Water Amenities chair, gave the report. The second dock project is complete and some work was being done on the landing road. Walton reported that the first thing his committee would like to do, was to continue on the landing project by replacing the old dock. In fact he stated that there was a contract in each board member's packet. All permits were in place. They would utilize the same contractor that just completed work on the second dock.
Garrison asks if the committee feels that the existing dock has come to the end of its useful life, or could repair, replace some portions, etc., be considered. He further stated that the committee needed more bids.
The discussion indicated that the committee did not view the dock as repairable. But wait, the recommendation was to relocate the old dock. Garrison wants to know if the dock can't be repaired, why would it be relocated anywhere? Walton responds that it could be used for some projects on the canals.
In the end, the project was stalled until more bids could be secured.
Second, we'll throw in McMilllin's Grounds Report (Printed as read and presented on the WPA website.
Grounds Report
January 2013
"There has been recent discussion about the maintenance of the spoil site for future use. Its actual definition, according to the Army Corp, is a “confined disposal facility”. Earthworks, the engineering firm hired to oversee the dredging process, made suggestions about what was needed to ensure the facility would be viable for future use. The dikes were seeded to reduce erosion. Any trees and brush were to be removed, because their root systems would create voids in the walls, leading to possible breaches. None of this has been addressed since the spoil site was last used, and it is quickly becoming overgrown. Since nobody disputes that this area is owned by WPA, then we are required to maintain it as “common property”. The legalities of this may become quite daunting. First, the property must be determined which category it falls under, grounds or water amenities. An inspection must be done to determine the scope of maintenance needed. Then, our grounds crew should tour the site and give an estimate of cost and frequency that this work should be performed. Also, the crew and equipment must be transported to and from the spoil site, since it is surrounded by water. I am hoping the upcoming reserve study will hill help address all or most of these issues, and the input could be quite valuable. There has not been any money budgeted specifically for such spoil site maintenance as far as I can determine, so if this falls on our regular crew, GLOG, a change in the budget must occur. Much more discussion will be needed, and I welcome the boards input. A little money spent now will avoid a major expense when the facility is needed again."
COMMENTS:
First to the Water Amenities report. I attended the open meeting between the board and the Water Amenities committee several months ago when the committee presented their information regarding a second dock. Their presentation was outstanding. However, there was nothing in that presentation that indicated that dock number one (existing) would have to be replaced immediately. NONE! At the time if anyone had said such a thing I believe they would have been sent packing and told to take care of what they had.
Listen to the January 15th tape under committee reports - Water Amenities, at The Wedgefield Times. First, when questioned about repair, the response was it couldn't be. Later they are going to move it into the canal for canal projects. How can that be? If it is junk at the landing, why is anyone considering it for recreation projects on the canals? Doesn't make sense. Additionally, if they did use it and there was ever an accident or injury, what would we be set up for?
Additionally, there was a swift move a few months ago that took the future canal recreation projects and moved them under grounds, which McMillin chairs. Why did the board move those projects, obviously canal and water related to grounds? Made no sense then, but might be breaking ground for something else.
If you consider the content of the January 15th Grounds Report, it appears that now another water based amenity may be moved to grounds. Why? From a line management prospect, it makes no sense at all.
Perhaps it is a money strategy by some on the board. First the board has acknowledged that the spoil site maintenance is the board's responsibility. Yet, I haven't noticed spoil site maintenance in the approved 2013 budget. There is no money in the Grounds budget for the spoil site and shouldn't be. The Grounds Committee shouldn't, by any stretch of the imagination, have anything to do with the spoil site. It should definitely be, along with any recreation projects on the canals, under WATER AMENITIES.
Is all this a grand plan to put a new replacement dock in and leave the rest "float", saying we have no money? Is it a power grip by some on the board to make these items part of their committee? I don't know, but all this is on the head of Jacky Walton. He is the president, he names the committee chairs, and he removed good, hard working, committee chairs, and replaced them with "fail to produce" board members. Does he really want to be president that badly? There appears to be some kind of inner sanctum politcts going on. Additionally, many of our board watch all this happen, must condone it, and do nothing about it. I didn't hear one board member question why McMillin's ground report contained the spoil site. I didn't hear one board member say to John Walton, "this committee never told us that dock one had to be replaced in months, when you presented your information for dock two".
Why isn't the board placing a ban on project spending until they re-align this budget? Where is the consistency in committees, committee responsibilities, and planned spending?
First to the Water Amenities report. I attended the open meeting between the board and the Water Amenities committee several months ago when the committee presented their information regarding a second dock. Their presentation was outstanding. However, there was nothing in that presentation that indicated that dock number one (existing) would have to be replaced immediately. NONE! At the time if anyone had said such a thing I believe they would have been sent packing and told to take care of what they had.
Listen to the January 15th tape under committee reports - Water Amenities, at The Wedgefield Times. First, when questioned about repair, the response was it couldn't be. Later they are going to move it into the canal for canal projects. How can that be? If it is junk at the landing, why is anyone considering it for recreation projects on the canals? Doesn't make sense. Additionally, if they did use it and there was ever an accident or injury, what would we be set up for?
Additionally, there was a swift move a few months ago that took the future canal recreation projects and moved them under grounds, which McMillin chairs. Why did the board move those projects, obviously canal and water related to grounds? Made no sense then, but might be breaking ground for something else.
If you consider the content of the January 15th Grounds Report, it appears that now another water based amenity may be moved to grounds. Why? From a line management prospect, it makes no sense at all.
Perhaps it is a money strategy by some on the board. First the board has acknowledged that the spoil site maintenance is the board's responsibility. Yet, I haven't noticed spoil site maintenance in the approved 2013 budget. There is no money in the Grounds budget for the spoil site and shouldn't be. The Grounds Committee shouldn't, by any stretch of the imagination, have anything to do with the spoil site. It should definitely be, along with any recreation projects on the canals, under WATER AMENITIES.
Is all this a grand plan to put a new replacement dock in and leave the rest "float", saying we have no money? Is it a power grip by some on the board to make these items part of their committee? I don't know, but all this is on the head of Jacky Walton. He is the president, he names the committee chairs, and he removed good, hard working, committee chairs, and replaced them with "fail to produce" board members. Does he really want to be president that badly? There appears to be some kind of inner sanctum politcts going on. Additionally, many of our board watch all this happen, must condone it, and do nothing about it. I didn't hear one board member question why McMillin's ground report contained the spoil site. I didn't hear one board member say to John Walton, "this committee never told us that dock one had to be replaced in months, when you presented your information for dock two".
Why isn't the board placing a ban on project spending until they re-align this budget? Where is the consistency in committees, committee responsibilities, and planned spending?
Sunday, January 20, 2013
PART II - JANUARY 15TH WPA BOARD MEETING - WHEN CAN YOU EVER TAKE THIS BOARD AT THEIR DOCUMENTED WORD?
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.
Inconsistency seems to be one of the major pitfalls of a board that claims cohesion, and almost a righteous claim to righting the order of the business of our association. There was a discussion about assessments, late charges, and changes to the policy manual, under new business. First, I encourage you to go to The Wedgefield Times and listen to the segment yourself. Before we move on, as we are talking about inconsistency, how is it that there was any new business at all? There wasn't anything listed under new business on the published agenda. Yet, Garrison comes to the table with the first reading of two proposed changes to the policy manual. According to the by-laws, all proposed changes are to be put up on the WPA website so that residents can review and comment. Another inconsistency, because it hasn't happened, and this board has made several changes.
Basically, Garrison acknowledges that assessments are due, paid in full, by the end of January. In fact, everyone of us received a coupon book and letter, with a due date of January 31st. William Douglas prepared the coupon books and did the mailing, based on the advisement of this board. This due date is consistent with the WPA covenants. #9: "Such assessment shall be set by the Board of Directors of Wedgefield Plantation Association and payable within thirty (30) days after written notice to the grantee."
Garrison moves into a long discussion about the fact that many past boards have kept this due date, but delayed any late charges until March 1st. He states that when the new policy manual was approved that the language in penalties was overlooked. He wants to make changes so that there aren't any late penalties until after March 1st.
McBride questions the motion. He says he felt when the board decided to use covenants and by-laws, as applied to assessments, that the board was going to do what was required. Garrison reminds him that indeed they have followed the governing documents and the assessments are due on January 31st, but there isn't any requirement regarding when to start billing late fees. Garrison goes back to history, hardship, etc. At times he states that residents had a whole year to consider the fact that their assessments were coming. When asked to consider holding residents to the published date, he says the board will receive hate mail. McBride asks who wrote the board. Garrison says he doesn't know. Some on the board comment and laugh and consider taking hate mail.
At some point in this long discussion the board realizes that they can't vote on the proposed changes to policy because this is only the first reading. It will be February before a second reading and vote. William Douglas is scheduled to send late notices and penalties on February 5th. The board then votes to instruct William Douglas not to send late notices in the month of February. McBride votes "no".
COMMENTS: I've provided the description above, to the best of my ability. I encourage you to listen to this section at The Wedgefield Times.
Wouldn't you think that the playing field in the sport of paying bills should be even? Wouldn't you think that you should be able to trust and believe the date due this board puts in writing to you? Wouldn't you think that if there is a merry go round ride to extend payment, without penalty for 30 days, that the information should have been included in the assessment billing for all of us to read and decide? Why are there privileges for deviant behavior, rather than rewards for appropriate behavior? Why wouldn't I receive a discount for paying on time?
I'm sick of hearing about precedent, "done in the past", etc. Just because someone else did it doesn't make it correct, particularly when you are supposedly going to govern according to our governing documents. The covenants tell us how long we have to pay. It is 30 days from issuance. We hired a management company to help us, and now we are circumventing and stalling collection. These extensions haven't worked in the past. The board provided the history of penalty fees for a five year period with the financial handouts. They are in the process of placing liens on over 20 properties, at our expense.
Of course this generous board spoke of hardship, poor economy, and bad times. We all have a heart. In the end, we all make decisions about when and how to pay. This is business. If you, knowing that every year the assessment arrives in January, due the end of January, fail to pay on time, then shouldn't you accept a $20.00 late fee? When the county sends your property tax, or you receive your electric, water bills, etc., you know that if you don't pay by the due date, there will be a penalty. That's how government and business handle payment due dates.
This policy, historic, or not, just abuses responsible residents, who believe the board when it says payment is due on the 31st. Next year, I may take my chances and keep my money in the bank 30 days longer. Why not? I keep hoping the board will be consistent, send out mailings, consistent with our covenants, and good business practice, and live by their written word.
Inconsistency seems to be one of the major pitfalls of a board that claims cohesion, and almost a righteous claim to righting the order of the business of our association. There was a discussion about assessments, late charges, and changes to the policy manual, under new business. First, I encourage you to go to The Wedgefield Times and listen to the segment yourself. Before we move on, as we are talking about inconsistency, how is it that there was any new business at all? There wasn't anything listed under new business on the published agenda. Yet, Garrison comes to the table with the first reading of two proposed changes to the policy manual. According to the by-laws, all proposed changes are to be put up on the WPA website so that residents can review and comment. Another inconsistency, because it hasn't happened, and this board has made several changes.
Basically, Garrison acknowledges that assessments are due, paid in full, by the end of January. In fact, everyone of us received a coupon book and letter, with a due date of January 31st. William Douglas prepared the coupon books and did the mailing, based on the advisement of this board. This due date is consistent with the WPA covenants. #9: "Such assessment shall be set by the Board of Directors of Wedgefield Plantation Association and payable within thirty (30) days after written notice to the grantee."
Garrison moves into a long discussion about the fact that many past boards have kept this due date, but delayed any late charges until March 1st. He states that when the new policy manual was approved that the language in penalties was overlooked. He wants to make changes so that there aren't any late penalties until after March 1st.
McBride questions the motion. He says he felt when the board decided to use covenants and by-laws, as applied to assessments, that the board was going to do what was required. Garrison reminds him that indeed they have followed the governing documents and the assessments are due on January 31st, but there isn't any requirement regarding when to start billing late fees. Garrison goes back to history, hardship, etc. At times he states that residents had a whole year to consider the fact that their assessments were coming. When asked to consider holding residents to the published date, he says the board will receive hate mail. McBride asks who wrote the board. Garrison says he doesn't know. Some on the board comment and laugh and consider taking hate mail.
At some point in this long discussion the board realizes that they can't vote on the proposed changes to policy because this is only the first reading. It will be February before a second reading and vote. William Douglas is scheduled to send late notices and penalties on February 5th. The board then votes to instruct William Douglas not to send late notices in the month of February. McBride votes "no".
COMMENTS: I've provided the description above, to the best of my ability. I encourage you to listen to this section at The Wedgefield Times.
Wouldn't you think that the playing field in the sport of paying bills should be even? Wouldn't you think that you should be able to trust and believe the date due this board puts in writing to you? Wouldn't you think that if there is a merry go round ride to extend payment, without penalty for 30 days, that the information should have been included in the assessment billing for all of us to read and decide? Why are there privileges for deviant behavior, rather than rewards for appropriate behavior? Why wouldn't I receive a discount for paying on time?
I'm sick of hearing about precedent, "done in the past", etc. Just because someone else did it doesn't make it correct, particularly when you are supposedly going to govern according to our governing documents. The covenants tell us how long we have to pay. It is 30 days from issuance. We hired a management company to help us, and now we are circumventing and stalling collection. These extensions haven't worked in the past. The board provided the history of penalty fees for a five year period with the financial handouts. They are in the process of placing liens on over 20 properties, at our expense.
Of course this generous board spoke of hardship, poor economy, and bad times. We all have a heart. In the end, we all make decisions about when and how to pay. This is business. If you, knowing that every year the assessment arrives in January, due the end of January, fail to pay on time, then shouldn't you accept a $20.00 late fee? When the county sends your property tax, or you receive your electric, water bills, etc., you know that if you don't pay by the due date, there will be a penalty. That's how government and business handle payment due dates.
This policy, historic, or not, just abuses responsible residents, who believe the board when it says payment is due on the 31st. Next year, I may take my chances and keep my money in the bank 30 days longer. Why not? I keep hoping the board will be consistent, send out mailings, consistent with our covenants, and good business practice, and live by their written word.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
PART I - THE JANUARY 15TH WPA BOARD MEETING
PRESIDENT'S REPORT: President Walton reported that the reserve study contract had been signed and sent to William Douglas. The start date has not been determined yet. He was asked whether the canals and spoil site were stated in the contract. The response was that they were included in the proposal, but not the contract.
COMMENTS:
First, what kind of report was this? What is the total amount of the contract? Who is the vendor? How is it that canals and spoil site were included in the proposal, but not the contract?
I'm sorry but I don't trust this board for a number of reasons, but particularly when it comes to the spoil site and the canals. Why? Think about it. The Canal Committee, a subcommittee of Water Amenities, took a proposal from committee to Garrison's Legal Committee, last spring. The committee's proposal was to add language to the Individual Assessment by-law, to be voted on by the residents (Note: the proposed by-law change was not an indication that Individual Assessment couldn't stand as it was, but an effort to ease the decisions of another board who faced dredging.) Garrison put his own proposal on the table and that was to form a canal sub-association, put forth a by-law change for a vote, for a yearly set aside for the canals. Additionally, the board would seek a legal opinion from the board attorney regarding the legality of forming a sub-association.
First, the legal opinion was presented verbally by Garrison. There wasn't a written opinion that could be shared/viewed by all, and utilized in the event that someone questioned it. Why? According to Garrison the attorney gave every indication that it was a legal possibility, but every canal resident would have to be in agreement. How likely was that? This board didn't even bother to look in the records when advised that this had been considered in the past.
Second, it was decided that a survey would be sent to all canal lot owners to determine their interest. The survey was months in development and finally sent around the time of the annual meeting. It was a ridiculous instrument! They weren't mailed to all the canal lot owners on the same date. There was no way to look at the authenticity of any of the responses because it wasn't signed by the board, did not require the responder's signature, or date to return by, and left the canal lot owners with a yes or no answer. This was nothing more that a staged effort in futility!
In the end, wait there is no end, because somewhere under 30 surveys were returned. Since there was no return date some could wait to return them next year! Of those returned many said "no".
The survey was mentioned at the December board meeting but what is next? There was nothing listed under "old business", or "new business", for January. Did this subject fall off the face of the earth, or just this "stall and hide tactics" board's agenda? It all just looks like smoke and mirrors to me.
How do you accept what is presented in a proposal and not include the language/assignment in the contract? This is just as sound as getting a legal opinion for a board and residents, verbally!
COMMENTS:
First, what kind of report was this? What is the total amount of the contract? Who is the vendor? How is it that canals and spoil site were included in the proposal, but not the contract?
I'm sorry but I don't trust this board for a number of reasons, but particularly when it comes to the spoil site and the canals. Why? Think about it. The Canal Committee, a subcommittee of Water Amenities, took a proposal from committee to Garrison's Legal Committee, last spring. The committee's proposal was to add language to the Individual Assessment by-law, to be voted on by the residents (Note: the proposed by-law change was not an indication that Individual Assessment couldn't stand as it was, but an effort to ease the decisions of another board who faced dredging.) Garrison put his own proposal on the table and that was to form a canal sub-association, put forth a by-law change for a vote, for a yearly set aside for the canals. Additionally, the board would seek a legal opinion from the board attorney regarding the legality of forming a sub-association.
First, the legal opinion was presented verbally by Garrison. There wasn't a written opinion that could be shared/viewed by all, and utilized in the event that someone questioned it. Why? According to Garrison the attorney gave every indication that it was a legal possibility, but every canal resident would have to be in agreement. How likely was that? This board didn't even bother to look in the records when advised that this had been considered in the past.
Second, it was decided that a survey would be sent to all canal lot owners to determine their interest. The survey was months in development and finally sent around the time of the annual meeting. It was a ridiculous instrument! They weren't mailed to all the canal lot owners on the same date. There was no way to look at the authenticity of any of the responses because it wasn't signed by the board, did not require the responder's signature, or date to return by, and left the canal lot owners with a yes or no answer. This was nothing more that a staged effort in futility!
In the end, wait there is no end, because somewhere under 30 surveys were returned. Since there was no return date some could wait to return them next year! Of those returned many said "no".
The survey was mentioned at the December board meeting but what is next? There was nothing listed under "old business", or "new business", for January. Did this subject fall off the face of the earth, or just this "stall and hide tactics" board's agenda? It all just looks like smoke and mirrors to me.
How do you accept what is presented in a proposal and not include the language/assignment in the contract? This is just as sound as getting a legal opinion for a board and residents, verbally!
Thursday, January 10, 2013
PART III: WITH THE SAME OLD SAME OLD BOARD-- CAN WE EXPECT PROGRESS?
And for the last three…
Adam Anderson was originally appointed to the Board and was re-elected in 2012. He was, and remains, chair of the Roads Committee. Initially, Adam did a road survey to pinpoint areas that need immediate attention. Through our management company, I think, a tree expert was contracted to deal with the tree roots. This contractor has the same certification as Peter of Great Lawns, so I am unsure as to why the Board chose to use someone else.
Adam was also chair of a sub-committee of the Water Amenities Committee. This committee was responsible for looking into funding for future maintenance of the canals. After his committee rejected the idea of a sub-association as not being practical, he then changed HIS mind and supported Bob Garrison’s idea that a sub-association be formed. Both Adam and Bob were aware of previous attempts to form this group that had been rejected by previous Boards on the advice of the attorney. Adam promised a survey that finally went out in October-November. Although the survey did not have a deadline for returning it, Adam had a report of the results for the December meeting. Of the 23 (?) responses, fewer than half supported the idea. Everyone in this community can thank Bob Garrison and Adam Anderson for wasting another year of a ten year permit and doing nothing to resolve this issue. Adam was once an independent thinker who investigated the facts before forming an opinion. What happened?
Larry McMillin was elected in 2009 and re-elected in 2012. He retains his title as chairman of the Grounds Committee. Larry was instrumental in hiring Great Lawns and works closely with them. The community has never looked better. Perhaps he can explain budgeting $10,000 for maintenance and repair of the irrigation system. It would be cheaper to use Georgetown Water and Sewer. Unfortunately, Larry does not like to make waves and continues his support of the “leaders”. He, and John Walton, do not read e-mails and are frequently clueless as to the intrigue surrounding them. If the Board is going to communicate with each other by e-mail, Kathy should print out the communications and place them in John and Larry’s mailboxes. Jacky, as president, should require them to pick up these e-mails weekly. Larry needs to stop sitting on his hands, become informed, and go on record with an opinion that sometimes goes against the majority. It’s time to think for yourself, Larry, and stand up and be counted.
John Walton was appointed in 2012 and elected for a three year term in November, 2012. John was appointed when Jackie Walters resigned and assumed chairmanship of her committees---Welcome and Communication. He did nothing for either committee. Over 20 families have moved into Wedgefield since anyone has been welcomed. Jackie continues to do a great job on the newsletter without any help from John. It was suggested, by Al DeMarchi, that John organize a party at the office for the new families and pay them to attend with a $20 Wal-Mart card. This was discussed for over 20 minutes until smarter heads prevailed and the subject was dropped. Like Larry, John does not DO e-mail and like Larry is frequently clueless. John was rewarded for his blind support of the ‘leadership’ with chairmanship of the Water Amenities Committee. Why? This committee is responsible for dealing with one of the more contentious issues in the Plantation—the canals. Why would the Board appoint someone to this chairmanship who contributed NOTHING? Is it because the ‘leaders’ have promised a certain group of people that nothing will happen with the canals or the spoil site as long as they are on the Board? Get off your duff, John, and make some positive contributions to this community.
As we go into 2013, this Board has some unfinished business:
At the December meeting, the maintenance of the spoil site was discussed. Bob Garrison stated that it was WPA property and needed to be maintained by the WPA. Our Board cannot maintain some property while ignoring other property. Their neglect of the spoil site is neglect of one of our most expensive assets. Over $165,000 of private money as well as over $350,000 of WPA funds were spent in securing a ten-year permit and restoring the spoil site to usable condition. Tick-tock! Their attitude, now, is fiscally irresponsible.
A contract was awarded on December to a group to do a reserve study. Has it started? What are the specs for the study? Is it available for member review? All Board members need to have input.
Where is the 2011 audit? Was it completed? Is it available for review?
Al DeMarchi contends that he is chair of the Compliance Committee. This committee is charged with reporting REGULARLY to the Board as to their adherence to the governing documents. Has this EVER happened? Is there a Compliance Committee report available for review?
Adam Anderson was originally appointed to the Board and was re-elected in 2012. He was, and remains, chair of the Roads Committee. Initially, Adam did a road survey to pinpoint areas that need immediate attention. Through our management company, I think, a tree expert was contracted to deal with the tree roots. This contractor has the same certification as Peter of Great Lawns, so I am unsure as to why the Board chose to use someone else.
Adam was also chair of a sub-committee of the Water Amenities Committee. This committee was responsible for looking into funding for future maintenance of the canals. After his committee rejected the idea of a sub-association as not being practical, he then changed HIS mind and supported Bob Garrison’s idea that a sub-association be formed. Both Adam and Bob were aware of previous attempts to form this group that had been rejected by previous Boards on the advice of the attorney. Adam promised a survey that finally went out in October-November. Although the survey did not have a deadline for returning it, Adam had a report of the results for the December meeting. Of the 23 (?) responses, fewer than half supported the idea. Everyone in this community can thank Bob Garrison and Adam Anderson for wasting another year of a ten year permit and doing nothing to resolve this issue. Adam was once an independent thinker who investigated the facts before forming an opinion. What happened?
Larry McMillin was elected in 2009 and re-elected in 2012. He retains his title as chairman of the Grounds Committee. Larry was instrumental in hiring Great Lawns and works closely with them. The community has never looked better. Perhaps he can explain budgeting $10,000 for maintenance and repair of the irrigation system. It would be cheaper to use Georgetown Water and Sewer. Unfortunately, Larry does not like to make waves and continues his support of the “leaders”. He, and John Walton, do not read e-mails and are frequently clueless as to the intrigue surrounding them. If the Board is going to communicate with each other by e-mail, Kathy should print out the communications and place them in John and Larry’s mailboxes. Jacky, as president, should require them to pick up these e-mails weekly. Larry needs to stop sitting on his hands, become informed, and go on record with an opinion that sometimes goes against the majority. It’s time to think for yourself, Larry, and stand up and be counted.
John Walton was appointed in 2012 and elected for a three year term in November, 2012. John was appointed when Jackie Walters resigned and assumed chairmanship of her committees---Welcome and Communication. He did nothing for either committee. Over 20 families have moved into Wedgefield since anyone has been welcomed. Jackie continues to do a great job on the newsletter without any help from John. It was suggested, by Al DeMarchi, that John organize a party at the office for the new families and pay them to attend with a $20 Wal-Mart card. This was discussed for over 20 minutes until smarter heads prevailed and the subject was dropped. Like Larry, John does not DO e-mail and like Larry is frequently clueless. John was rewarded for his blind support of the ‘leadership’ with chairmanship of the Water Amenities Committee. Why? This committee is responsible for dealing with one of the more contentious issues in the Plantation—the canals. Why would the Board appoint someone to this chairmanship who contributed NOTHING? Is it because the ‘leaders’ have promised a certain group of people that nothing will happen with the canals or the spoil site as long as they are on the Board? Get off your duff, John, and make some positive contributions to this community.
As we go into 2013, this Board has some unfinished business:
At the December meeting, the maintenance of the spoil site was discussed. Bob Garrison stated that it was WPA property and needed to be maintained by the WPA. Our Board cannot maintain some property while ignoring other property. Their neglect of the spoil site is neglect of one of our most expensive assets. Over $165,000 of private money as well as over $350,000 of WPA funds were spent in securing a ten-year permit and restoring the spoil site to usable condition. Tick-tock! Their attitude, now, is fiscally irresponsible.
A contract was awarded on December to a group to do a reserve study. Has it started? What are the specs for the study? Is it available for member review? All Board members need to have input.
Where is the 2011 audit? Was it completed? Is it available for review?
Al DeMarchi contends that he is chair of the Compliance Committee. This committee is charged with reporting REGULARLY to the Board as to their adherence to the governing documents. Has this EVER happened? Is there a Compliance Committee report available for review?
This is your community. Get involved!
PS
It’s Wednesday morning and no agenda!
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
PART II: WITH THE SAME OLD SAME OLD BOARD-- CAN WE EXPECT PROGRESS?
Same old, same old…
It’s mid-day on Wednesday, January 9 and once again the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting has not been published! Whose job is it? Is it the President’s, or the Secretary’s, or has someone delegated this job to our Resident Manager, Kathy? Regardless, more times than not, the agenda fails to appear in a timely manner.
An organizational meeting was held sometime in December. I do not remember it being posted. I DO REMEMBER paying for a legal opinion from Bob Moran that these meetings should be open to the membership. Unlike recent opinions, this one was in writing. Why would any Board member ignore written advice from an attorney? Perhaps the answer lies in the choices for committee chairs.
I’ll skip Legal and ARC, both mentioned before and both basically dysfunctional.
Al DeMarchi as Treasurer is chair of Finance and he retains the Drainage Committee. The Finance Committee needs to work on the monthly financials and the budget. I couldn’t tell you how much was spent on drainage in Wedgefield last year because I can’t find any mention on the monthly report. Al was unable to secure any members for his drainage committee. I wonder why! Hopefully, he’ll have better luck this year as the finance committee, especially, is a big job! Was Al responsible for that fiasco of our assessments or was it Janine? It was my understanding that a letter would accompany the coupon book. This letter would be specific to Wedgefield and clearly explain the additional charge for using a credit card.
Janine Cline is Secretary and is the chair of the Communications Committee. She is responsible for the WRAGG, the directory, and community events. Janine was fortunate to have Amy Brandon step up to the plate and organize our holiday decorating, tree lighting, and golf cart parade. Although Amy tried to mention all of her elves, I wonder if Janine thought to send a letter of appreciation. Hey Janine! It would be nice to have an early WRAGG with each Board member’s plans and ideas for the upcoming year. It’s hard to get four issues out when the first one comes in March. She plans to have our 2013 directory hand delivered by the end of January.
That Jason Barrier continues to chair the Community Liaison Committee is beyond belief. He rarely has a report. That may be because he doesn’t answer most concerns presented by members. Jason appears to be a Board member ONLY on the third Tuesday of the month.
John McBride was moved from the Water Amenities Committee to the Welcome Committee. The Water Amenities Committee was one of the few to present a project to the Board in 2012. The committee secured the funding and appropriate permits, sought competitive bids, and supervised the work. All of Wedgefield can now enjoy a second dock at the landing making launching and retrieving boats easier. One of the sub-committees of this committee will be discussed under another Board member. I wonder if John was removed from chairmanship of this committee because he asks questions and tries to make sure we follow the governing documents.
This” cohesive” Board prefers that everyone fall into line and believe the rhetoric delivered by a few Board members as gospel. The motto of this Board seems to be, don’t make waves and vote yes on everything presented by the ‘leadership.’ To do otherwise, results in disrespect from other Board members in private and at meetings, the withholding of information, and a reduction in responsibilities.
STAY TUNED FOR PART III
It’s mid-day on Wednesday, January 9 and once again the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting has not been published! Whose job is it? Is it the President’s, or the Secretary’s, or has someone delegated this job to our Resident Manager, Kathy? Regardless, more times than not, the agenda fails to appear in a timely manner.
An organizational meeting was held sometime in December. I do not remember it being posted. I DO REMEMBER paying for a legal opinion from Bob Moran that these meetings should be open to the membership. Unlike recent opinions, this one was in writing. Why would any Board member ignore written advice from an attorney? Perhaps the answer lies in the choices for committee chairs.
I’ll skip Legal and ARC, both mentioned before and both basically dysfunctional.
Al DeMarchi as Treasurer is chair of Finance and he retains the Drainage Committee. The Finance Committee needs to work on the monthly financials and the budget. I couldn’t tell you how much was spent on drainage in Wedgefield last year because I can’t find any mention on the monthly report. Al was unable to secure any members for his drainage committee. I wonder why! Hopefully, he’ll have better luck this year as the finance committee, especially, is a big job! Was Al responsible for that fiasco of our assessments or was it Janine? It was my understanding that a letter would accompany the coupon book. This letter would be specific to Wedgefield and clearly explain the additional charge for using a credit card.
Janine Cline is Secretary and is the chair of the Communications Committee. She is responsible for the WRAGG, the directory, and community events. Janine was fortunate to have Amy Brandon step up to the plate and organize our holiday decorating, tree lighting, and golf cart parade. Although Amy tried to mention all of her elves, I wonder if Janine thought to send a letter of appreciation. Hey Janine! It would be nice to have an early WRAGG with each Board member’s plans and ideas for the upcoming year. It’s hard to get four issues out when the first one comes in March. She plans to have our 2013 directory hand delivered by the end of January.
That Jason Barrier continues to chair the Community Liaison Committee is beyond belief. He rarely has a report. That may be because he doesn’t answer most concerns presented by members. Jason appears to be a Board member ONLY on the third Tuesday of the month.
John McBride was moved from the Water Amenities Committee to the Welcome Committee. The Water Amenities Committee was one of the few to present a project to the Board in 2012. The committee secured the funding and appropriate permits, sought competitive bids, and supervised the work. All of Wedgefield can now enjoy a second dock at the landing making launching and retrieving boats easier. One of the sub-committees of this committee will be discussed under another Board member. I wonder if John was removed from chairmanship of this committee because he asks questions and tries to make sure we follow the governing documents.
This” cohesive” Board prefers that everyone fall into line and believe the rhetoric delivered by a few Board members as gospel. The motto of this Board seems to be, don’t make waves and vote yes on everything presented by the ‘leadership.’ To do otherwise, results in disrespect from other Board members in private and at meetings, the withholding of information, and a reduction in responsibilities.
STAY TUNED FOR PART III
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
WITH THE SAME OLD SAME OLD BOARD-- CAN WE EXPECT PROGRESS?
WITH THE SAME OLD SAME OLD BOARD-- CAN WE EXPECT PROGRESS? I wouldn’t count on it!
Although it’s a New Year, I wouldn’t expect any new ideas from this tired Board. A few positions have changed, but their idea of cohesion and cooperation is my idea of do nothing and don’t make waves. Let’s look at their track record:
Jacky Walton remains President and Chair of the ARC. As President, Jacky is responsible for the actions of his committee chairs. He continues to ALLOW: selective responses to member concerns, personal communications from the Board to members, hearsay instead of written legal opinions, miserable and inaccurate financial reports, a failure to welcome new residents in any manner, and a steady decline in the enforcement of ARC guidelines. Yes! He has chairs for all of these functions, yet Jacky continues to condone irresponsible behavior.
Bob Garrison is, once again, Vice-president and Legal Chair. It seems that the attorney of record, Mr. Moody, does not like to put legal opinions in writing. Bob, and the rest of the Board, allow Mr. Moody to tell Mr. Garrison who comes back and tells the Board. It amazes me that any volunteer Board member would accept a he said/she said opinion. We should not have to go back and pay again for a written opinion. Our legal expenses through November are more than $5,000 over budget. We can’t see the legal bills, so no member can see why the variance. The canal sub-association was Bob’s idea and a true fiasco. Meanwhile, nothing is being done about canal or spoil site maintenance –or was this Bob’s plan.
Janine Cline has switched from Treasurer to Secretary. As Treasurer, she was unable to get the management financial reports to come even close to accurate. It seems that William Douglas is trying to force our needs to fit one of their canned programs instead of customizing to our needs. Why did it take until the December meeting for the information regarding who pays the credit card fee to come to light. The only members who were made aware of this fact were the dozen at the December meeting. Was the confusing letter accompanying our coupon book Janine’s fault or the new treasurer’s—Al DeMarchi.
Al DeMarchi has gone from Secretary to Treasurer. Hopefully, he will finally straighten out our financial reporting mess. As Secretary, Al managed to violate our By-laws by denying access to documents. He created his own reserve distribution and passed the misused confidentiality agreement by claiming that it was previously approved. He bemoaned the lack of volunteers, blamed others for ruining it, and failed to take responsibility for his own actions. He continues to be the liaison with William Douglas—what a joke!
William Douglas through Edmund LaFrance has been a big disappointment and waste of money. Is this the fault of Edmund or the fault of controlling Board members? A quick look in the correspondence file does not reveal any written evaluation or complaints about Edmund’s performance. How can anyone expect improvement if the problem isn’t identified?
THIS IS PART ONE OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES. MORE TO FOLLOW.
Although it’s a New Year, I wouldn’t expect any new ideas from this tired Board. A few positions have changed, but their idea of cohesion and cooperation is my idea of do nothing and don’t make waves. Let’s look at their track record:
Jacky Walton remains President and Chair of the ARC. As President, Jacky is responsible for the actions of his committee chairs. He continues to ALLOW: selective responses to member concerns, personal communications from the Board to members, hearsay instead of written legal opinions, miserable and inaccurate financial reports, a failure to welcome new residents in any manner, and a steady decline in the enforcement of ARC guidelines. Yes! He has chairs for all of these functions, yet Jacky continues to condone irresponsible behavior.
Bob Garrison is, once again, Vice-president and Legal Chair. It seems that the attorney of record, Mr. Moody, does not like to put legal opinions in writing. Bob, and the rest of the Board, allow Mr. Moody to tell Mr. Garrison who comes back and tells the Board. It amazes me that any volunteer Board member would accept a he said/she said opinion. We should not have to go back and pay again for a written opinion. Our legal expenses through November are more than $5,000 over budget. We can’t see the legal bills, so no member can see why the variance. The canal sub-association was Bob’s idea and a true fiasco. Meanwhile, nothing is being done about canal or spoil site maintenance –or was this Bob’s plan.
Janine Cline has switched from Treasurer to Secretary. As Treasurer, she was unable to get the management financial reports to come even close to accurate. It seems that William Douglas is trying to force our needs to fit one of their canned programs instead of customizing to our needs. Why did it take until the December meeting for the information regarding who pays the credit card fee to come to light. The only members who were made aware of this fact were the dozen at the December meeting. Was the confusing letter accompanying our coupon book Janine’s fault or the new treasurer’s—Al DeMarchi.
Al DeMarchi has gone from Secretary to Treasurer. Hopefully, he will finally straighten out our financial reporting mess. As Secretary, Al managed to violate our By-laws by denying access to documents. He created his own reserve distribution and passed the misused confidentiality agreement by claiming that it was previously approved. He bemoaned the lack of volunteers, blamed others for ruining it, and failed to take responsibility for his own actions. He continues to be the liaison with William Douglas—what a joke!
William Douglas through Edmund LaFrance has been a big disappointment and waste of money. Is this the fault of Edmund or the fault of controlling Board members? A quick look in the correspondence file does not reveal any written evaluation or complaints about Edmund’s performance. How can anyone expect improvement if the problem isn’t identified?
THIS IS PART ONE OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES. MORE TO FOLLOW.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
LOOKS LIKE SAME OLD, SAME OLD, FOR 2013 - PART I
THE WPA ASSESSMENT, THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, AND YOUR BOARD:
When did paying your annual assessment become complicated? When the management company sent a coupon book, a letter, and several address options if you wanted to pay in person, and credit card payment options (For a while your board didn't even know who was going to bear the burden of the associated fees. It is YOU.). Where did drop or mail it at the office go? Where did this is the date to pay and the amount due, in simple fashion go? Right down the drain. Your board added the Drano to speed the process to confusion, lack of information, and hidden information.
As I've stated in the past, I believed a management company could be just what we needed to move forward in a business manner, removing personalities, etc. I also stated that ANY management company could only operate at the pleasure of the board., This board has micro managed everything. Possibly to the determent of the management company's ability to perform according to their industry standard. Right now, they would receive grade "F".
First, the board wouldn't make the management company contract available. They wouldn't publish the details of what we as residents are paying over $30,000 for. Now, I understand they have allowed a few residents to come in and view the contract. If we don't know what we bought, how can we evaluate how the management company is doing?
We have a few details that have slipped out verbally during meetings. We know that the management company is suppose to answer resident correspondence. I can tell you I have written several times and never received an answer from the management company. I know the same applies for other residents. What's the problem? The strong arm of some on the board. Some of them email from their home computers and answer without comment from the rest of the board, halt the response provided from one board member or another as they prepare draft information for the management company representative, etc. So we aren't receiving that stated service from the management company.
I thought I heard that the management company could have done the annual meeting packet and mailing. That didn't happen.
We were told the management company could and would procure bids. I sit at board meetings. Sometimes they are asked to and other times not. Why? Guess some on the board would lose control.
The management company is suppose to be providing our financial reports suited to our WPA needs. There have been problems every month. We have line items that simply don't apply. Where is the truly individualized statement?
In the end if the management company is only ALLOWED to provide this ridiculous assessment billing, financial reports that are generic, and little else. We aren't getting much for over $30,000/yr. Hmmm. Looks like all we have is a high paid accounting group! Remember how certain members on the board pulled the accounting from a legitimate accountant, brought accounting back in house, and screwed things up royally? Well it appears we are back at it again with this billing and reporting, except we were only paying an accountant $750/month! Do the math. THIS ISN'T A BARGAIN!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)