During the February WPA board meeting, your board discussed sending a letter to residents regarding the change of address, for residents who were in the process of paying their 2013 assessments. This was necessitated by the fact that our management company had given notice of cancellation of their contract. Effective March 11, they will no longer be handling any of our WPA business, including collection of assessments.
Your board sent the following to residents on February 21. "Our community will no longer be represented by William Douglas Management. Please mail all assessments, correspondence, late fees, etc. to the following address effective this date, Feb. 21, 2013. Wedgefield Plantation Association P.O. Box 1310 Georgetown, SC 29440 Thank you in advance,"
I found this to be a waste of paper and postage. First, all assessment collection, except for straggling late payers, would have been completed by January 31st, if your board hadn't played with dates. Oh, the due date remained the same, but we had two months of readings so they could change the policy and move penalties on late payers to March 1st. To my knowledge, and review of the correspondence file, no one requested this. It is just another action of your benevolent, big brother board feeling they know what is best.
Back to the letter. Since your board was going to the expense of writing you all, and attendance at meetings is low (less than a dozen), they could have sent a meaningful, information packed document to you. Other than the annual assessment and annual meeting mailing, you haven't heard from them. Why didn't they tell us what caused the management company to quit? Why didn't they describe the accounting decisions they were going to have to make and the method they were going to use to "keep our financial books"? Do they think they are all powerful? Do they think that you aren't smart enough to care or question? Was it because they were going to lump all these decisions in a closed meeting they think they can hold by calling it "personnel"? Whatever it is, it appears they believe that you'll just let them pull the wool over your eyes.
Yes, this letter was a waste of paper and postage. Probably not the view of this board, because they continue to rule and hide.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Sunday, February 24, 2013
PART III - THE WPA FEBRUARY BOARD MEETING - THE WATER AMENITIES REPORT
I'll relate what took place to the best of my ability. Please go to The Wedgefield Times and listen to the report for yourself.
Water Amenities Chair, John Walton reported that he had three bids to replace the # 1, or original dock at the landing. A motion is made and seconded by Cline to proceed with a cost of $15,022. Before we go any further, remember that the Water Amenities Committee made a presentation to the board last year convincing them that a second dock was necessary to safety and ultimate use of the landing. The second dock was approved and the second dock (new) was completed late last year. I attended the presentation to the board and no mention was made of the now "unrepairable" number one dock. During the January Board Meeting, as the new 2013 budget hit the road (new money), John Walton proposed replacing dock number one, had one bid, and stated this "unrepairable dock", could be towed into the canals, for the use of projects there. Garrison questioned the use in the canal area, if it was truly "unrepairable", along with the fact that the committee only had one bid. A vote was held until February.
During the February meeting, Garrison wanted to know what the Water Amenities budget was for 2013. Treasurer, DeMarchi stated that it was $15,000 and there was approximately $19,000 in reserves. Please note that we haven't had a reserve study yet, and the figures for reserves were determined in a formula developed by DeMarchi. Garrison has more questions. He wants to know if the old #1 dock will be dissembled and removed, so as not to end up in our "back yard". Anderson wants to know what the time frame is. We're informed that the contractor could start by the end of February and have the project completed in March.
The vote is taken. All nine board members are in attendance. Barrier is the only one who votes "no". He doesn't give any indication why, in the form of questions, or comment. I am grateful to Barrier for his "no" vote. Why? First, we haven't had acceptable finance reports in 6-8 months. The management company has quit. They have been collecting our assessments, paying our bills, and providing the financial reports, with the guidance of two different treasurers. Our reserves are being assigned without a reserve study. There is just too much regarding our finances hanging in mid-air. I have respect for many of the people who serve on the Water Amenities Committee, but I believe they have become overly zealous about what they want at the landing, at our expense. Later on we'll review the grounds report. The Water Amenities Committee appears to have allowed the maintenance of the spoil site to be deposited in that budget. In January, McMillin reported that there wasn't any money in the grounds budget for spoil site maintenance. It could appear that your board will shuffle and move financial burdens to suit their "cohesive, behind the public's backs, deals", to keep promises to each other. If a dock is truly needed, we should straighten out some crucial finance problems, wait for the reserve study, and not allow the board to reassign committee responsiblities, irresponsibly. When Water Amenities can detail how they will take care of the spoil site within their budget and build a new dock, it would be legitimate.
Water Amenities Chair, John Walton reported that he had three bids to replace the # 1, or original dock at the landing. A motion is made and seconded by Cline to proceed with a cost of $15,022. Before we go any further, remember that the Water Amenities Committee made a presentation to the board last year convincing them that a second dock was necessary to safety and ultimate use of the landing. The second dock was approved and the second dock (new) was completed late last year. I attended the presentation to the board and no mention was made of the now "unrepairable" number one dock. During the January Board Meeting, as the new 2013 budget hit the road (new money), John Walton proposed replacing dock number one, had one bid, and stated this "unrepairable dock", could be towed into the canals, for the use of projects there. Garrison questioned the use in the canal area, if it was truly "unrepairable", along with the fact that the committee only had one bid. A vote was held until February.
During the February meeting, Garrison wanted to know what the Water Amenities budget was for 2013. Treasurer, DeMarchi stated that it was $15,000 and there was approximately $19,000 in reserves. Please note that we haven't had a reserve study yet, and the figures for reserves were determined in a formula developed by DeMarchi. Garrison has more questions. He wants to know if the old #1 dock will be dissembled and removed, so as not to end up in our "back yard". Anderson wants to know what the time frame is. We're informed that the contractor could start by the end of February and have the project completed in March.
The vote is taken. All nine board members are in attendance. Barrier is the only one who votes "no". He doesn't give any indication why, in the form of questions, or comment. I am grateful to Barrier for his "no" vote. Why? First, we haven't had acceptable finance reports in 6-8 months. The management company has quit. They have been collecting our assessments, paying our bills, and providing the financial reports, with the guidance of two different treasurers. Our reserves are being assigned without a reserve study. There is just too much regarding our finances hanging in mid-air. I have respect for many of the people who serve on the Water Amenities Committee, but I believe they have become overly zealous about what they want at the landing, at our expense. Later on we'll review the grounds report. The Water Amenities Committee appears to have allowed the maintenance of the spoil site to be deposited in that budget. In January, McMillin reported that there wasn't any money in the grounds budget for spoil site maintenance. It could appear that your board will shuffle and move financial burdens to suit their "cohesive, behind the public's backs, deals", to keep promises to each other. If a dock is truly needed, we should straighten out some crucial finance problems, wait for the reserve study, and not allow the board to reassign committee responsiblities, irresponsibly. When Water Amenities can detail how they will take care of the spoil site within their budget and build a new dock, it would be legitimate.
Friday, February 22, 2013
PART II - THE WPA FEBRUARY 19 BOARD MEETING - DRAINAGE REPORT
Drainage Chair, Al DeMarch gave the report. I've tried to provide information to the best of my ability. Listen to the Drainage Report at The Wedgefield Times. This is important because it may lead us down a very risky trail. DeMarchi reports that there are small projects that will come up. He suggests that they hire Jacky Walton. Jacky has the equipment and a good reputation and he has done work for the condo association. Jacky Walton says he does have a backhoe, etc, but doesn't want someone saying he is taking advantage. John Walton likes the idea of having the work done in house. Garrison says that the situation does present problems and there is only one bid. McBride says he would hate to put Jacky Walton in a conflict of interest, he doesn't want to see that situation happen again, and this is totally wrong and looks bad. DeMarchi says they'll discuss it at the closed executive meeting your board is planning. Remember they stated they'd hold a closed meeting because it is personnel- NOT!
The dealings and discussions between board members for contract work should be conducted during open board meetings for everyone to hear. This is our money. We have a right to observe the methods, governing documents, business sense used by the members to make decisions. This one is a no brainer! The skilled individual the board is going to discuss BEHIND CLOSED DOORS is not only a board member, but the PRESIDENT of the association! Every member of that board should be avoiding this, know better than to bring up ANY discussion that doesn't pass the test of our governing documents, let alone what any PRUDENT BUSINESS PERSON WOULD DO. McBride has it right. Remember he doesn't want to see that situation happen again and it is totally wrong and looks bad! Hold all your board responsible for planning a closed meeting that isn't justified because this isn't a personnel issue. It is a contract and ethical issue. I hold President Walton more responsible than the rest of the board. He is the PRESIDENT. Where was his real objection? Where was his removal of any committee chair who would recommend this? HE HAS THAT POWER! While they are all responsible, he is the leader. Right now it looks like he might turn his head and allow this CLOSED FAKE PERSONNEL MEETING. You are not without blame, if you haven't attended meetings, or have sat by and watched them pull the wool over your eyes!
The dealings and discussions between board members for contract work should be conducted during open board meetings for everyone to hear. This is our money. We have a right to observe the methods, governing documents, business sense used by the members to make decisions. This one is a no brainer! The skilled individual the board is going to discuss BEHIND CLOSED DOORS is not only a board member, but the PRESIDENT of the association! Every member of that board should be avoiding this, know better than to bring up ANY discussion that doesn't pass the test of our governing documents, let alone what any PRUDENT BUSINESS PERSON WOULD DO. McBride has it right. Remember he doesn't want to see that situation happen again and it is totally wrong and looks bad! Hold all your board responsible for planning a closed meeting that isn't justified because this isn't a personnel issue. It is a contract and ethical issue. I hold President Walton more responsible than the rest of the board. He is the PRESIDENT. Where was his real objection? Where was his removal of any committee chair who would recommend this? HE HAS THAT POWER! While they are all responsible, he is the leader. Right now it looks like he might turn his head and allow this CLOSED FAKE PERSONNEL MEETING. You are not without blame, if you haven't attended meetings, or have sat by and watched them pull the wool over your eyes!
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
PART I - THE WPA FEBRUARY 19 BOARD MEETING - THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT
President Walton reported that the management company sent notification on February 11, 2013, that they were giving a 30 day termination of contract notice to the WPA. The board will be working with company representative, Edmund La France for return of records, etc. Later, it was stated that it would be difficult to find another company to work with the WPA.
As a resident I will write the board and ask to review the correspondence file in order to read the letter. This announcement shouldn't come as any surprise to us. I believe this board refused to utilize the benefits of working with a management company and indeed, failed to allow them the freedom to function under the terms of the contract they signed. They tied the hands of the contractor. The management company was there at the pleasure of the board. This board is too controlling to effectively benefit from a management company.
This is a mess. Residents are sending assessment payments to the management company. Many of our current records reside with them. There is a bank account associated with the necessary transactions between the WPA and the management company. We have started a new year, and now will have to determine who will deal with the accounting function.
The future of the accounting function makes me nervous. We have watched four treasurers come and go since January 2011. Each has a new and better idea. One took the accounting from a contract CPA and brought it in house. He had to change the wording of the policy manual to hire the unqualified person he wanted to manage our accounting. Now, we've had six months with the management company, under two different treasurers.
Your board is discussing calling an Executive Meeting for personnel reasons! Why? The only personnel we have is the paid staff secretary. We should have contracts for services, provided by incorporated individuals, who are not staff. In 2009 the board received bids for accounting services by CPA's, reviewed services and pricing and went to contract. The costs and related services were discussed at an open board meeting, and a public vote taken. The contract was available for any resident who wanted to see it. Why behind closed doors now? This started when the accounting was brought in house and the standard lowered. I asked to see the contract and was denied the privilege because it was "fake" personnel.
Residents this is our money. Obviously, we have a great deal of transition. It should not impact concrete handling of our money assets. It does, in every respect. Follow the "rest of the story" as we move through the actions, motions, and discussions of the February 19th board meeting. Next, President Walton will be discussed at the closed "fake" personnel executive meeting. The board would like to contract with him to do drainage work. Note to board and our president, could you read the conflict of interest statements and policies we have in place????
As a resident I will write the board and ask to review the correspondence file in order to read the letter. This announcement shouldn't come as any surprise to us. I believe this board refused to utilize the benefits of working with a management company and indeed, failed to allow them the freedom to function under the terms of the contract they signed. They tied the hands of the contractor. The management company was there at the pleasure of the board. This board is too controlling to effectively benefit from a management company.
This is a mess. Residents are sending assessment payments to the management company. Many of our current records reside with them. There is a bank account associated with the necessary transactions between the WPA and the management company. We have started a new year, and now will have to determine who will deal with the accounting function.
The future of the accounting function makes me nervous. We have watched four treasurers come and go since January 2011. Each has a new and better idea. One took the accounting from a contract CPA and brought it in house. He had to change the wording of the policy manual to hire the unqualified person he wanted to manage our accounting. Now, we've had six months with the management company, under two different treasurers.
Your board is discussing calling an Executive Meeting for personnel reasons! Why? The only personnel we have is the paid staff secretary. We should have contracts for services, provided by incorporated individuals, who are not staff. In 2009 the board received bids for accounting services by CPA's, reviewed services and pricing and went to contract. The costs and related services were discussed at an open board meeting, and a public vote taken. The contract was available for any resident who wanted to see it. Why behind closed doors now? This started when the accounting was brought in house and the standard lowered. I asked to see the contract and was denied the privilege because it was "fake" personnel.
Residents this is our money. Obviously, we have a great deal of transition. It should not impact concrete handling of our money assets. It does, in every respect. Follow the "rest of the story" as we move through the actions, motions, and discussions of the February 19th board meeting. Next, President Walton will be discussed at the closed "fake" personnel executive meeting. The board would like to contract with him to do drainage work. Note to board and our president, could you read the conflict of interest statements and policies we have in place????
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
STAY TUNED - THE FEBRUARY 19TH WPA BOARD MEETING
Most of you didn't attend the WPA February Board Meeting. You missed out. Your board is counting on you remaining silent - as though you don't care.
QUICK HIGHLIGHTS:
*The management company has sent a 30 day notice stating they don't want to work with us. Wonder why?????
*You are getting another new replacement dock at the landing.
*The board did pull the spoil site across water and make it a "grounds" responsibility. Could it be for money? Probably, Water Amenities spent their money on a replacement dock.
*The board passed two motions to let the residents pay late, without penalty.
*The board will hold an executive meeting because accounting is now personnel???? President Jacky Walton's business may be doing drainage work - further discussion to be held in the closed personnel meeting???? Does this board know who or what qualifies as personnel? Is this a ploy to hold discussions that they don't want you to hear? PROBABLY!
*Ever think lot mowing would be a private discussion?
There is much, much more. Barrier voted "no" on several items that I should thank him for. That would have been my vote. A concerned citizen asked why we are maintaining the spoil site if we are NEVER going to use it again! A resident stated they sent a letter to the board, each individual board member, and it was never answered. Really? I review the correspondence file and there are many more like him. Maybe they will change the policy manual so they don't have to answer. President Walton formed a committee to set guide lines that has never met. You know what they say at the end of presidential speeches, "God bless American". I say, "God help Wedgefield." Stay tuned for complete articles.
QUICK HIGHLIGHTS:
*The management company has sent a 30 day notice stating they don't want to work with us. Wonder why?????
*You are getting another new replacement dock at the landing.
*The board did pull the spoil site across water and make it a "grounds" responsibility. Could it be for money? Probably, Water Amenities spent their money on a replacement dock.
*The board passed two motions to let the residents pay late, without penalty.
*The board will hold an executive meeting because accounting is now personnel???? President Jacky Walton's business may be doing drainage work - further discussion to be held in the closed personnel meeting???? Does this board know who or what qualifies as personnel? Is this a ploy to hold discussions that they don't want you to hear? PROBABLY!
*Ever think lot mowing would be a private discussion?
There is much, much more. Barrier voted "no" on several items that I should thank him for. That would have been my vote. A concerned citizen asked why we are maintaining the spoil site if we are NEVER going to use it again! A resident stated they sent a letter to the board, each individual board member, and it was never answered. Really? I review the correspondence file and there are many more like him. Maybe they will change the policy manual so they don't have to answer. President Walton formed a committee to set guide lines that has never met. You know what they say at the end of presidential speeches, "God bless American". I say, "God help Wedgefield." Stay tuned for complete articles.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
WILL YOU ATTEND THE WPA FEBRUARY 19th BOARD MEETING?
I hope you'll attend the meeting. The last few months the board meeting attendance has been down to about a dozen people. Our membership is getting lax. Our board appears to be counting on it. Please invest some time. Let them know you are aware and watching. Your complacency may be adding to their "cohesiveness" and comfort levels. They aren't working at representing us under our governing documents and "in the best interests of Wedgefield". They continue to vote on change of policy, either accept poor performance from our management company, or are causing it by limiting the scope of the contractor's work, at great financial expense to us. The list could go on.....and on.
The agenda follows. Note they don't bother to tell you that they will have second reading on a policy change that would allow residents to ignore the January 31 assessment due date, without penalty until March 1st. Who asked them to? I reviewed the correspondence file and couldn't find any requests. Stay tuned. Please attend the meeting.
Here is the agenda:
Adjourn – Jacky Walton
The agenda follows. Note they don't bother to tell you that they will have second reading on a policy change that would allow residents to ignore the January 31 assessment due date, without penalty until March 1st. Who asked them to? I reviewed the correspondence file and couldn't find any requests. Stay tuned. Please attend the meeting.
Here is the agenda:
WPA MONTHLY MEETING AGENDA
February 19, 2013
Call to Order – President
Attendance - President
Quorum- Secretary
Approve December Minutes – All Board Members
Officer Reports
President – Jacky Walton
Vice President – Bob Garrison
Secretary –Janine Cline
Treasurer – Al DeMarchi
Committee Reports
ARC – Jacky Walton
Legal – Bob Garrison
Finance – Al DeMarchi
Communications- Janine Cline
Community Liaison- Jason Barrier
Welcome Committee- John McBride
Drainage – Al DeMarchi
Water Amenities- John Walton
Condo Liaison- Jacky Walton
Roads- Adam Anderson
Grounds – Larry McMillin
Compliance- Al DeMarchi
Old Business –
Spoil Site maintenance
New Business –
Comment Section- Resident Comments
Only 1 comment or question per resident will be permitted unless time allows for
more.
Adjourn – Jacky Walton
Saturday, February 9, 2013
THE WEDGEFIELD WRAGG - THANKS TO THE EDITOR - NO THANKS TO THE BOARD
I hope you all received your Wedgefield Wragg last week. Editor, Jackie Walters deserves a big thanks from all of us. This is a thankless job under the best of circumstances.
Is the Wedgefield Wragg important? The policy manual states the following under "PURPOSE", The Board of Directors of the Wedgefield Plantation Association have determined that the "Wedgefield Wragg", our periodic newsletter, is a valuable method of communicating pertinent information to our residents, should be continued to published indefinitely, and be budgeted according to the already approved "Communication Policy". Later , "Priority will be given to items of significance to the majority of the association." The quotes are taken from the COMMUNICATION section of the policy manual.
First think about your communication with the board. As residents we usually receive 6 pieces of written communication a year from the board. Four Wraggs, an assessment billing, and the annual meeting packet. If you don't attend meetings, live at a distance, are a lot owner, rather than a resident, this is all the information you have from your board.
I've lived in the plantation since 2004 and served as editor for three years. The Wragg was much different. It was filled with committee reports, kept residents abreast of golf cart usage, dogs, policy changes, etc. That has changed since 2010. For awhile it was utilized to push one sided political agendas on the canals, or the one sided, often short sighted view of a particular board member or members, on an issue. Committee reports diminished and we became a social page of births, marriages, and graduations.
Take a good look at the recent publication. The articles are brief, lack content, and the crucial issues of our association don't appear. Did the treasurer mention that the financial reports have been a mess for months? Did the president mention the mess with the reserve study contract? Was it mentioned that while the board is constantly changing the policy manual to accommodate what they want, that they don't even date the changes. Did they mention one of the reasons they are having difficulty recruiting volunteers is because of a fake, supposed historic confidentiality agreement? Where's the information about roads, landing, water amenities, grounds, legal which over spent almost 50% for 2012, the management company and failing to utilize all the benefits detailed in their contract, etc. This is not Walters fault. You assemble the material you are provided. This board is truly a don't ask, don't tell board. You can ask. They don't answer. They don't tell because it is their business (not).
Note that Walters is provided so little information that she has to use large print and spacing to cover the pages. I don't think she likes being put in this position. Walters attempted to get this board back on track with organization and the spirit of the publication. I reviewed the correspondence file. On December 26, 2012 she emailed the board and asked them to post a Wragg deadline of January 20th, on the association website. Never happened. Additionally, she told them that she had been getting complaints about the lack of reports in the publication. She asked them to submit reports for their committees. It appears it all fell on deaf ears!
Thank you Jackie Walters, for your time and efforts! What can you do? Help get this publication back to the informative vehicle it was meant to be. Don't bother to write the board. They don't answer most of us. Don't bother to write the management company. They don't answer us. There is a way.
Take action. Write the editor of the Wragg. The policy further states, "Letters to the Editor will be published provided they are signed and express a legitimate point of view of interest to members." Copy the board. You also might want to send them to wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com Why? Your board reviews the draft of the Wragg. They put most letters in the dead letter file. Help open information to our residents.
Is the Wedgefield Wragg important? The policy manual states the following under "PURPOSE", The Board of Directors of the Wedgefield Plantation Association have determined that the "Wedgefield Wragg", our periodic newsletter, is a valuable method of communicating pertinent information to our residents, should be continued to published indefinitely, and be budgeted according to the already approved "Communication Policy". Later , "Priority will be given to items of significance to the majority of the association." The quotes are taken from the COMMUNICATION section of the policy manual.
First think about your communication with the board. As residents we usually receive 6 pieces of written communication a year from the board. Four Wraggs, an assessment billing, and the annual meeting packet. If you don't attend meetings, live at a distance, are a lot owner, rather than a resident, this is all the information you have from your board.
I've lived in the plantation since 2004 and served as editor for three years. The Wragg was much different. It was filled with committee reports, kept residents abreast of golf cart usage, dogs, policy changes, etc. That has changed since 2010. For awhile it was utilized to push one sided political agendas on the canals, or the one sided, often short sighted view of a particular board member or members, on an issue. Committee reports diminished and we became a social page of births, marriages, and graduations.
Take a good look at the recent publication. The articles are brief, lack content, and the crucial issues of our association don't appear. Did the treasurer mention that the financial reports have been a mess for months? Did the president mention the mess with the reserve study contract? Was it mentioned that while the board is constantly changing the policy manual to accommodate what they want, that they don't even date the changes. Did they mention one of the reasons they are having difficulty recruiting volunteers is because of a fake, supposed historic confidentiality agreement? Where's the information about roads, landing, water amenities, grounds, legal which over spent almost 50% for 2012, the management company and failing to utilize all the benefits detailed in their contract, etc. This is not Walters fault. You assemble the material you are provided. This board is truly a don't ask, don't tell board. You can ask. They don't answer. They don't tell because it is their business (not).
Note that Walters is provided so little information that she has to use large print and spacing to cover the pages. I don't think she likes being put in this position. Walters attempted to get this board back on track with organization and the spirit of the publication. I reviewed the correspondence file. On December 26, 2012 she emailed the board and asked them to post a Wragg deadline of January 20th, on the association website. Never happened. Additionally, she told them that she had been getting complaints about the lack of reports in the publication. She asked them to submit reports for their committees. It appears it all fell on deaf ears!
Thank you Jackie Walters, for your time and efforts! What can you do? Help get this publication back to the informative vehicle it was meant to be. Don't bother to write the board. They don't answer most of us. Don't bother to write the management company. They don't answer us. There is a way.
Take action. Write the editor of the Wragg. The policy further states, "Letters to the Editor will be published provided they are signed and express a legitimate point of view of interest to members." Copy the board. You also might want to send them to wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com Why? Your board reviews the draft of the Wragg. They put most letters in the dead letter file. Help open information to our residents.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
CORRESPONDENCE TO MANAGEMENT COMPANY REGARDING CONTRACT AND PAYMENTS
February 4, 2013
TO: Mr. Edmund LaFrance via email:
elafrance@wmdouglas.com
FROM: Madeline Y. Claveloux
RE: Invoice & Payment Procedures - WPA Board and William Douglas Contract
CC: WPA Board, Wedgefield Examiner
Please place a copy in the correspondence file and distribute to the WPA Board
I wrote the Board and asked to review the invoice and payment files for the William Douglas WPA contract. I received the following from the WPA Board Secretary. “Note that we do not receive monthly invoices from WDM. The income statement shows an auto payment for the monthly fee as per the contract. You may notify Edmund at William Douglas regarding any specific invoices in question, that are not listed on the income statement.”
This response left me with a number of questions that perhaps you, or someone on the board can answer. I was surprised that this is the method utilized to pay the management company. Please send me a report of the monthly auto payments from the start of contract through January 2013. If there are variances over or under $2525.00, please provide the detail.
At a glance with auto payment, it appears that no one on the board signs off approving the expense. Is that true? If not, and there is sign off by the board, please tell me how that is accomplished, and where the records are held. Who signs the checks?
My questions are generated by a number of concerns. I’ve reviewed the contract.
WDM should compose, type, and mail eight (8) letters per month. Yet, I just reviewed the correspondence file from October - end of December 2012 and for the most part, resident letters go unanswered by WDM, or the board. I didn’t see WDM response letters attached. In rare instances, there were board responses attached.
WDM will assist in securing project bids and in contract development. Yet, WDM secured bids for a reserve study, a contract was developed, and signed by the WPA president, and then payment stopped on the check to the contractor. Rumor has it that the president signed a contract different from the one approved by the board. What happened? As a resident I couldn’t review the RFP because the board said your office issued the RFP. Did the board review the document? If so, who? Please provide a copy of the RFP.
WDM is to assist ARC. When a resident wrote you about a “failed to maintain” property. You asked the resident to take a picture. Later after you failed to respond, a board member advised the resident that it was no worse than a lot of properties here. What assistance has WDM provided to ARC and how many attempts at solving issues are in progress, or completed?
WDM is to prepare and present to the Board of Directors monthly financial statements, including agents fee, and render monthly statements of receipts and disbursements. The contract with WDM was to commence on May 2, 2012. I attend most monthly board meetings. Almost monthly, it is reported that the treasurer has spent hours with you. Yet, they further state that more adjustments to the reports are in progress. In the mean time items such as gazebo maintenance appear, something we don’t have. During the January meeting, the treasurer used the term erroneous in describing some items contained in the report. Shouldn’t the WPA be receiving customized, accurate reports?
WDM is to perform a number of mailings each year. Which mailings have you prepared outside of the assessment mailing? Why weren’t you involved in the annual meeting mailing?
WDM agent shall file necessary court action involved in the collection of delinquent assessments, using legal counsel designated by Board. Have you been filing the necessary court actions?
WDM receives a portion of the late fees collected on delinquent accounts. How do you invoice and receive payment for those fees? What sign off does the board have for those payments?
After reviewing the contract and files allowed by this board, I am left feeling that we are paying a steep fee for nothing more than accounting & reporting services that have not been customized to meet WPA reporting needs, and a bill collection service. The records I would normally be allowed to review as a resident are unavailable because according to the board, you have them. It also could appear that you are receiving payments for services that haven‘t been rendered according to the terms of the contract, and the board may have removed themselves from the authority of review, sign off of acceptance of a job completed per the contract, while providing easy access to payment.
I have written you in the past. At one point you emailed me stating that I would receive an answer in a designated period of time, and never was answered. This came after you asked me to resend my request. I have been directed to write to you. I’d appreciate a complete response.
TO: Mr. Edmund LaFrance via email:
elafrance@wmdouglas.com
FROM: Madeline Y. Claveloux
RE: Invoice & Payment Procedures - WPA Board and William Douglas Contract
CC: WPA Board, Wedgefield Examiner
Please place a copy in the correspondence file and distribute to the WPA Board
I wrote the Board and asked to review the invoice and payment files for the William Douglas WPA contract. I received the following from the WPA Board Secretary. “Note that we do not receive monthly invoices from WDM. The income statement shows an auto payment for the monthly fee as per the contract. You may notify Edmund at William Douglas regarding any specific invoices in question, that are not listed on the income statement.”
This response left me with a number of questions that perhaps you, or someone on the board can answer. I was surprised that this is the method utilized to pay the management company. Please send me a report of the monthly auto payments from the start of contract through January 2013. If there are variances over or under $2525.00, please provide the detail.
At a glance with auto payment, it appears that no one on the board signs off approving the expense. Is that true? If not, and there is sign off by the board, please tell me how that is accomplished, and where the records are held. Who signs the checks?
My questions are generated by a number of concerns. I’ve reviewed the contract.
WDM should compose, type, and mail eight (8) letters per month. Yet, I just reviewed the correspondence file from October - end of December 2012 and for the most part, resident letters go unanswered by WDM, or the board. I didn’t see WDM response letters attached. In rare instances, there were board responses attached.
WDM will assist in securing project bids and in contract development. Yet, WDM secured bids for a reserve study, a contract was developed, and signed by the WPA president, and then payment stopped on the check to the contractor. Rumor has it that the president signed a contract different from the one approved by the board. What happened? As a resident I couldn’t review the RFP because the board said your office issued the RFP. Did the board review the document? If so, who? Please provide a copy of the RFP.
WDM is to assist ARC. When a resident wrote you about a “failed to maintain” property. You asked the resident to take a picture. Later after you failed to respond, a board member advised the resident that it was no worse than a lot of properties here. What assistance has WDM provided to ARC and how many attempts at solving issues are in progress, or completed?
WDM is to prepare and present to the Board of Directors monthly financial statements, including agents fee, and render monthly statements of receipts and disbursements. The contract with WDM was to commence on May 2, 2012. I attend most monthly board meetings. Almost monthly, it is reported that the treasurer has spent hours with you. Yet, they further state that more adjustments to the reports are in progress. In the mean time items such as gazebo maintenance appear, something we don’t have. During the January meeting, the treasurer used the term erroneous in describing some items contained in the report. Shouldn’t the WPA be receiving customized, accurate reports?
WDM is to perform a number of mailings each year. Which mailings have you prepared outside of the assessment mailing? Why weren’t you involved in the annual meeting mailing?
WDM agent shall file necessary court action involved in the collection of delinquent assessments, using legal counsel designated by Board. Have you been filing the necessary court actions?
WDM receives a portion of the late fees collected on delinquent accounts. How do you invoice and receive payment for those fees? What sign off does the board have for those payments?
After reviewing the contract and files allowed by this board, I am left feeling that we are paying a steep fee for nothing more than accounting & reporting services that have not been customized to meet WPA reporting needs, and a bill collection service. The records I would normally be allowed to review as a resident are unavailable because according to the board, you have them. It also could appear that you are receiving payments for services that haven‘t been rendered according to the terms of the contract, and the board may have removed themselves from the authority of review, sign off of acceptance of a job completed per the contract, while providing easy access to payment.
I have written you in the past. At one point you emailed me stating that I would receive an answer in a designated period of time, and never was answered. This came after you asked me to resend my request. I have been directed to write to you. I’d appreciate a complete response.
Friday, February 1, 2013
PART VI - THE JANUARY 15 WPA MEETING - THE TREASURER'S REPORT
I had to sit and think about how I could begin to put thoughts to paper. The Wedgefield Examiner will start with the facts. Each attendee at the January 15th meeting received a four page treasurer's report. In any similar circumstance, with a board and their related report documents, I could take their papers home and file them as a fact of what was happening in that area of the organization. Not here! Listen to the Treasurer's report at The Wedgefield Times, at about 7.38 minutes into the tape. When DeMarchi gave the report he explained that he had received the report at 6:00 PM, from the management company. He further states that he has spent hours with the management company to get the report in line for reporting Wedgefield's financial transactions. Next, the key word that jumped out of his report was that there was ERRONEOUS information in the reports that we had been handed to take home as RECORDS! You may not keep your reports, but I do. In an era of lawsuits, often claims of violating sound business practice in money and contract management (whether true or false), we were handed this report. The headings were blocked out and according to the handout we have $19,786.61 in canal funds, a $10,000 irrigation system & repair budget, a social committee budget of $500, etc. In the recent past, I believe we even had gazebo maintenance on a report. I didn't see any of these items in the APPROVED 2013 budget.
My stack of reports for the last two plus years are inconsistent, almost no two alike, are either dumbed down like we couldn't possibly understand a real report, or have line items sent all over the place. I hope the board, or the related individual board members, never have to justify this mess in a court. I don't know how they could.
What's the problem? When did we begin to lack consistency and concrete reports? It really started after the Recall of 2010 and a new treasurer that brought in a in house accounting program favored by some of his co-horts in the Concerned Citizen hierarchy. At that time, we had a contract with a CPA, but paid staff to run the in house program and the CPA. That treasurer resigned. McMillin took over. Your board voted to fire the CPA, add a new accounting system, and a bookkeeper, who was brought in to "save money" and "get the job done right". McMillin dumbed down the report to the residents to a page with 10 - 12 lines on it. 2012 delivered Cline as treasurer, who again changed the look of the reports. The bookkeeper was out mid year, and the management company entered early last summer. 2013 brings DeMarchi in as treasurer, and we continue with the management company. We are headed to change again. There is a new reporting format being developed as we read. I'll remind you that we haven't had a report, provided by the management company that truly reports the business of Wedgefield, since the management company entered. If you review the tapes of the meetings since they entered, no matter which treasurer is speaking, they are making verbal corrections, claiming hours of time spent with the management company, etc. I respect the treasurer's time. I question why they are allowing this to go on. I question why they are handing out documents that don't have written correction, to ERRONEOUS information.
Your board, your president, allow ineffective, erroneous reporting to continue. Remember that CPA? We paid him $750/month to perform these services. We are paying the management company $2,525/month - minimum, for a number of services your board is either barely using, or not using at all. Your board is utilizing their accounting services. This is costing you and me, way too much. I've got my financial reports, but it appears by the word ERRONEOUS, that I can't count on what is reported.
I've worked for, or served on, numerous boards for over 25 years. Great boards, middle of the road boards, ineffective boards, but not one did, or would have, handed out an organization financial report, knowing it had ERRONEOUS information on it.
My stack of reports for the last two plus years are inconsistent, almost no two alike, are either dumbed down like we couldn't possibly understand a real report, or have line items sent all over the place. I hope the board, or the related individual board members, never have to justify this mess in a court. I don't know how they could.
What's the problem? When did we begin to lack consistency and concrete reports? It really started after the Recall of 2010 and a new treasurer that brought in a in house accounting program favored by some of his co-horts in the Concerned Citizen hierarchy. At that time, we had a contract with a CPA, but paid staff to run the in house program and the CPA. That treasurer resigned. McMillin took over. Your board voted to fire the CPA, add a new accounting system, and a bookkeeper, who was brought in to "save money" and "get the job done right". McMillin dumbed down the report to the residents to a page with 10 - 12 lines on it. 2012 delivered Cline as treasurer, who again changed the look of the reports. The bookkeeper was out mid year, and the management company entered early last summer. 2013 brings DeMarchi in as treasurer, and we continue with the management company. We are headed to change again. There is a new reporting format being developed as we read. I'll remind you that we haven't had a report, provided by the management company that truly reports the business of Wedgefield, since the management company entered. If you review the tapes of the meetings since they entered, no matter which treasurer is speaking, they are making verbal corrections, claiming hours of time spent with the management company, etc. I respect the treasurer's time. I question why they are allowing this to go on. I question why they are handing out documents that don't have written correction, to ERRONEOUS information.
Your board, your president, allow ineffective, erroneous reporting to continue. Remember that CPA? We paid him $750/month to perform these services. We are paying the management company $2,525/month - minimum, for a number of services your board is either barely using, or not using at all. Your board is utilizing their accounting services. This is costing you and me, way too much. I've got my financial reports, but it appears by the word ERRONEOUS, that I can't count on what is reported.
I've worked for, or served on, numerous boards for over 25 years. Great boards, middle of the road boards, ineffective boards, but not one did, or would have, handed out an organization financial report, knowing it had ERRONEOUS information on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)