I've listened to the tape of the April 16 WPA board meeting. I'm not going to transcribe every word of each report. I'm reporting what I heard to the best of my ability. Please listen to the tape yourself. TRANSCRIPTION IS UNDERLINED. COMMENTS IN RED
The following contains the ARC & Legal Reports. Legal is lengthy. The balance of the reports will be provided in another article.
ARC:
President Walton provides the report, as he is chair of that committee. He starts by thanking his committee members: Bob Garrison, Al DeMarchi, and Keith Johnson. He says that the last month was extremely busy. The following requests have been approved:
*Lot 450 - tree removal
*Lot 48 - pool installation
*Lot 141 - builder deposit
*Lot 450 - new home construction
*Lot 282 - tree removal and placement of sidewalk
*Lot 474 - patio
DeMarchi adds information on tree removal. Please see the next Wragg for the details but things have changed and the county is involved.
Both Walton and DeMarchi do a great job in providing a full report. Again, watch for an article about tree removal. DeMarchi provided complete information, and we all should be aware of the changes.
LEGAL:
Garrison provides information in several areas.
1) Attorney collection letters on current year:
Garrison reports that at the last meeting the board had talked a little about the possibility of sending attorney collection letters on current year past due accounts. There are about 31 lots and the attorney crafted letters would cost about $75.00 each. The board would need to decide whether it was money well spent. It was noted that by May, the accumulated late fees on these accounts would about cover the cost of the letters. DeMarchi would like to hold off the decision until the May meeting. He feels there are at least 5 or 6 planning to pay up in the next week or two. McBride asks if we can attach the letter expense to the delinquent accounts? Garrison quotes some legal language that indicates that might not be possible. Walton states that he feels attorney letters carry more weight.
2) Can the names of delinquent member accounts be published?
Garrison reports that at the last meeting, the question had come up as to whether a list of delinquents could be published in areas such as the Wragg. He says the answer to that is "maybe yes, maybe no". The attorney does not recommend it primarily because of the "Fair Debt Collections Act". He goes into a credible explanation. He goes on to say, "The only way you could publish it is if in fact delinquency was a matter of public record. Once a lien is filed then there is a public record. The attorney doesn't feel it works all that well."
You'll have to go to the tape and listen for yourself. Garrison speaks knowledgeably about the topics presented above. Then there is a question. I'll transcribe to the best of my ability. Listen to the tape yourself. Things get loud.
McBride, "Did he put that in writing?" Garrison, "No, No" McBride, "Are we paying him for this? Garrison, "I'm not paying him to put it in writing!" McBride, "Why not?" Cline laughs. Garrison, "I already spent $300 for a simple answer!" I just told you what the man said. He did not put it in writing. I did not ask him to, nor was I asked to have him put it in writing. I was asked to ask this question and I did." McBride, "So all we have is hear say?" Garrison, "YEAH JOHN THAT'S RIGHT, JUST HEAR SAY!" DeMarchi, "That's good enough for me." President Walton, "Carry on. Carry on."
3) Update on plots - 5 pieces of land behind property of canal lots:
Garrison reports that we have these plats for these 5 pieces of property that are small and located behind certain canal lots that we've discussed for several months. The plats are done. They are ready to be recorded at the court. He makes a motion, "I make a motion that the board approve $50 a piece for the five of them, to have these plats recorded." DeMarchi seconds the motion. McMillin starts to say, "There was one of the five that" He is interrupted as one of the board members says, "That one is not included in this." Garrison goes on to inform the board that recording does not mean conveyance at this point and that the plats will be recorded to show where the property line is. It will delineate between what is their property at this particular point, and where WPA property is. The intent is to convey the WPA property to them. McMillin, "Does this mean those people assume responsibility to maintain their bulkheads?" Garrison, "Entire purpose of it. Get us out from under that liability." DeMarch, "One of those lots has replaced his bulkhead." Garrison, "Most of them think its theirs already. Once recorded, good standing verified, we will draft a letter conveying that property to them. Not ready to draft them yet. Tonight, ask you to approve a sum, not to exceed $150 to have those letters drafted, as such time approve able to do so." DeMarchi seconds. McBride asks if this is about all the expense related to this? Then McBride asks, "We haven't asked them to pay?" Garrison, "It's our property." McBride, "We going to gift them?" Cline laughs again. Garrison, "That's right. It is useless to us. In the long run will save us potential" Walton, "....bulkheads." Garrison, "A number of expenses." The motion passes, but McBride abstains.
COMMENTS:
As I stated above, both Walton and Garrison did a good job of informing the residents in their committee reports. I have a major objection to the TONE of this meeting and what appears to be a selected, deliberate, disrespect for a board member, often joined by our president. It appears that McMillin, DeMarchi, Garrison, and Walton can ask questions, add comments, and in the case of Cline, laugh outright, during discussions. One resident, NOT board member, commented to me recently about Cline's laughter. They asked if I had ever counted the times she laughed during any one board meeting, or noted who was the brunt of her laughter? I hadn't. The resident said I should quit labeling it as laughter and call it what it is, a cackle. Why doesn't President Walton bring these tactics to a halt? He, personally had every board member sign the Code of Ethics. It appears that it isn't worth the paper it is written on, when you observe or listen to the meeting.
Legal opinions should be in writing. Otherwise, they are simply hear say. If I recall correctly, at a point within the last two years, the board (some of these same members), had to go back to this very same attorney and have him WRITE opinions, he had given verbally, in the past. Since the middle of 2010 we have had conflicts at the board table when a past legal chair, stated the attorney said one thing, and it was later found that that wasn't quite what the attorney said. Each board member, and in most cases, residents, should be able to review, hold in hand to study, legal opinions. Additionally, we have had as many as four or five lawsuits going at one time, in the last five years. Your board is failing to protect the board and you and me.
Finally, I'm not so sure you can give away WPA land. If my property were involved with these parcels of land, I'd say no thank you, verbally and legally. After all, by the board's own words, they don't want the liability. Remember, they repaired the bulk head on a property that had this issue, at great expense to you and me. If I was one of these lot owners, I'd want the bulk head upgraded before I accepted the board's stated liability dump.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Friday, April 26, 2013
PART III: THE APRIL 16 WPA BOARD MEETING - PRESIDENT WALTON DECLARES LOUDLY, "I'M THE PRESIDENT!"
I've listened to the tape of the April 16 WPA board meeting. I'm not going to transcribe every word of each report. I'm reporting what I heard to the best of my ability. Please listen to the tape yourself. TRANSCRIPTION IS UNDERLINED. COMMENTS IN RED
I usually listen to the meeting tapes from the beginning, stop at various reports, write, and then move back to the tape. I got a few phone calls telling me that I needed to get to the end of the tape. The stories varied. Today, I went almost to the end of the tape, listened, and really couldn't believe what I heard. Remember, sometimes the old boy's network "I'll wash your back, you wash mine", coupled with the "inner circle" works, and other times it comes back to bite you on behind. Well it did for some.
I can't refer you to the agenda because this ITEM WASN'T ON THE AGENDA. Your board completes the last item of business on the agenda, under NEW BUSINESS, and Garrison makes a motion. Here it is: "One more under new business. Make a motion that the board instruct the treasurer and finance committee to construct a 2014 budget assuming an annual assessment in the amount of $475." The motion is seconded by DeMarchi. Cline, Why are we not waiting to get a reserve study, which might be of value?" President Walton, "Doesn't have any bearing." Cline, "Why wouldn't it have any bearing?" Garrison, "Regardless of how the reserve study comes out, my feeling is that we need to be committed to put a CEILING on the available dollars and then we make the rest of it fit. If its fit able. If it turns out that it can't be done - although I recall believe that it can and should be, with plenty of money for reserve, between $24,000/year not spent on the management company, thousands of dollars a year we're not spending on the loan. We should be able to bring assessments back down near the pre-dredging level. Build reserves over a....period of time." Cline, "Thinking $500." Garrison, "See where it comes out...at the moment I think it is important for the residents to understand ...that the board has been serious about getting this loan paid off....way ahead of time. That we've said consistently, I HAVE ANYWAY...period of time ...was to bring the assessments back down. By preparing, this doesn't mean it is etched in stone, but it gives you a guideline in terms of budget that ought to be approve able when we get there and let residents know that the assessments are going to come down." President Walton, "We have a motion and a second." He repeats the motion. McMillin, "WAIT A MINUTE, WAIT A MINUTE" I knew a few people talked, but I didn't know that was the end of it. What happens...say if you (can't catch the words) ....say there is not enough money to even consider (can't catch words)". Walton, "That's why we're instructing the treasurer to work on a project for 2014 based around..." McMillin, "This is not for approval then?" President Walton, "No, No." McBride, "In the first place, this was not on the agenda. You just brought it up and you are cold cocking us." President Walton, "The president has a RIGHT to adjust the agenda so" McBride, "I think this is an important case." President Walton, "YOU ARE OUT OF ORDER!" McBride, "....An important topic like this......It is WRONG". NOTE: There are other voices talking at the table. They can't be identified on the tape. Cline, "Put it on next month's agenda. We'll talk about it." McBride, "Maybe we'll have a reserve study done and we can base some....Important agenda item like this just..." President Walton, "All WE WANT IS A BUDGET" (I couldn't contain myself. Whose WE?) McBride, ".....do a budget but don't" DeMarchi, "Please just put it on next month's agenda. We're going to propose another budget for this year any way so" President Walton, "WE'RE DONE! President Walton bangs the gavel. Several conversations are going on at the table. President Walton can be heard, "I AM ALLOWED" The tape is shut off. For the second month in a row, no resident comments are taken.
COMMENTS:
The tape of the meeting provided plenty of insight as to what went on. I'm sorry I didn't get to attend this theatrical production. This was the kind of drama you get when you run a board, have them sign ethic statements, don't live up to the Code of Ethics yourself, let alone demand it of your board members. Our PRESIDENT has sat back, ignored conventional wisdom and common sense, Robert's rules, our governing documents, sound business practice, committee structure, allowed abuse of certain board members at the board table, and now calls on his PRESIDENT STATUS????? Please!!! Can the president add something to the agenda? Yes, if unusual circumstance has presented itself, after the agenda was published, and prior to the meeting. Good practice would call for him to publish an amended agenda, make his TOTAL board aware - even if he had to do it just prior to the meeting, and explain the EMERGENCY. Otherwise, he is just playing games with favored members of HIS crew, and blind siding the rest. THERE WAS NO EMERGENCY. THIS APPEARS TO BE A BACK ROOM DEAL.
Who do you think the knowing players were? From what I heard on the tape, I would say President Walton and Garrison. While McMillin protests, he inadvertently admits, "I knew a few people talked". Isn't that a kick in the behind? He appears to have no problem working behind some board members' backs, but the good old boys network blind sided him this time. He does help bring this episode to a halt, but he doesn't appear happy about what some of his cohorts did behind his back. You can't quite tell how much DeMarchi knew. He stays silent through most of it. Wouldn't you think the treasurer, who made the "accounting function" decisions behind closed doors, would have said, "Wait, that's my department and committee/" You decide. Cline seems surprised but doesn't appear to object to President Walton's wild move. Then we have the silent ones: Anderson and Barrier (John Walton is absent). President Walton's move must be ok with them. Listen to the tape. Did you hear them protest? Did they know? Sometimes, silence isn't golden.
Overall, this is the mess this back room administration has created over several months. Keep sitting by quietly, let it happen, don't bother to call them out. I'd like lower assessments, but I'd like to get them governed by a board who follows everything listed above, that they aren't. I thank McBride for calling them out. By the way McBride, you aren't 'out of order", it appears you know what ORDER and ethical governance is.
I usually listen to the meeting tapes from the beginning, stop at various reports, write, and then move back to the tape. I got a few phone calls telling me that I needed to get to the end of the tape. The stories varied. Today, I went almost to the end of the tape, listened, and really couldn't believe what I heard. Remember, sometimes the old boy's network "I'll wash your back, you wash mine", coupled with the "inner circle" works, and other times it comes back to bite you on behind. Well it did for some.
I can't refer you to the agenda because this ITEM WASN'T ON THE AGENDA. Your board completes the last item of business on the agenda, under NEW BUSINESS, and Garrison makes a motion. Here it is: "One more under new business. Make a motion that the board instruct the treasurer and finance committee to construct a 2014 budget assuming an annual assessment in the amount of $475." The motion is seconded by DeMarchi. Cline, Why are we not waiting to get a reserve study, which might be of value?" President Walton, "Doesn't have any bearing." Cline, "Why wouldn't it have any bearing?" Garrison, "Regardless of how the reserve study comes out, my feeling is that we need to be committed to put a CEILING on the available dollars and then we make the rest of it fit. If its fit able. If it turns out that it can't be done - although I recall believe that it can and should be, with plenty of money for reserve, between $24,000/year not spent on the management company, thousands of dollars a year we're not spending on the loan. We should be able to bring assessments back down near the pre-dredging level. Build reserves over a....period of time." Cline, "Thinking $500." Garrison, "See where it comes out...at the moment I think it is important for the residents to understand ...that the board has been serious about getting this loan paid off....way ahead of time. That we've said consistently, I HAVE ANYWAY...period of time ...was to bring the assessments back down. By preparing, this doesn't mean it is etched in stone, but it gives you a guideline in terms of budget that ought to be approve able when we get there and let residents know that the assessments are going to come down." President Walton, "We have a motion and a second." He repeats the motion. McMillin, "WAIT A MINUTE, WAIT A MINUTE" I knew a few people talked, but I didn't know that was the end of it. What happens...say if you (can't catch the words) ....say there is not enough money to even consider (can't catch words)". Walton, "That's why we're instructing the treasurer to work on a project for 2014 based around..." McMillin, "This is not for approval then?" President Walton, "No, No." McBride, "In the first place, this was not on the agenda. You just brought it up and you are cold cocking us." President Walton, "The president has a RIGHT to adjust the agenda so" McBride, "I think this is an important case." President Walton, "YOU ARE OUT OF ORDER!" McBride, "....An important topic like this......It is WRONG". NOTE: There are other voices talking at the table. They can't be identified on the tape. Cline, "Put it on next month's agenda. We'll talk about it." McBride, "Maybe we'll have a reserve study done and we can base some....Important agenda item like this just..." President Walton, "All WE WANT IS A BUDGET" (I couldn't contain myself. Whose WE?) McBride, ".....do a budget but don't" DeMarchi, "Please just put it on next month's agenda. We're going to propose another budget for this year any way so" President Walton, "WE'RE DONE! President Walton bangs the gavel. Several conversations are going on at the table. President Walton can be heard, "I AM ALLOWED" The tape is shut off. For the second month in a row, no resident comments are taken.
COMMENTS:
The tape of the meeting provided plenty of insight as to what went on. I'm sorry I didn't get to attend this theatrical production. This was the kind of drama you get when you run a board, have them sign ethic statements, don't live up to the Code of Ethics yourself, let alone demand it of your board members. Our PRESIDENT has sat back, ignored conventional wisdom and common sense, Robert's rules, our governing documents, sound business practice, committee structure, allowed abuse of certain board members at the board table, and now calls on his PRESIDENT STATUS????? Please!!! Can the president add something to the agenda? Yes, if unusual circumstance has presented itself, after the agenda was published, and prior to the meeting. Good practice would call for him to publish an amended agenda, make his TOTAL board aware - even if he had to do it just prior to the meeting, and explain the EMERGENCY. Otherwise, he is just playing games with favored members of HIS crew, and blind siding the rest. THERE WAS NO EMERGENCY. THIS APPEARS TO BE A BACK ROOM DEAL.
Who do you think the knowing players were? From what I heard on the tape, I would say President Walton and Garrison. While McMillin protests, he inadvertently admits, "I knew a few people talked". Isn't that a kick in the behind? He appears to have no problem working behind some board members' backs, but the good old boys network blind sided him this time. He does help bring this episode to a halt, but he doesn't appear happy about what some of his cohorts did behind his back. You can't quite tell how much DeMarchi knew. He stays silent through most of it. Wouldn't you think the treasurer, who made the "accounting function" decisions behind closed doors, would have said, "Wait, that's my department and committee/" You decide. Cline seems surprised but doesn't appear to object to President Walton's wild move. Then we have the silent ones: Anderson and Barrier (John Walton is absent). President Walton's move must be ok with them. Listen to the tape. Did you hear them protest? Did they know? Sometimes, silence isn't golden.
Overall, this is the mess this back room administration has created over several months. Keep sitting by quietly, let it happen, don't bother to call them out. I'd like lower assessments, but I'd like to get them governed by a board who follows everything listed above, that they aren't. I thank McBride for calling them out. By the way McBride, you aren't 'out of order", it appears you know what ORDER and ethical governance is.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
PART II: THE APRIL 16 WPA MEETING - THE TREASURER'S REPORT
I've listened to the tape of the April 16 WPA board meeting. I'm not going to transcribe every word of each report. I'm reporting what I heard to the best of my ability. Please listen to the tape yourself. TRANSCRIPTION IS UNDERLINED.
The Treasurer's Report breaks down into three items.
(1) QUICK BOOKS:
Almost immediately, DeMarchi brings a motion to the table. He says Kathy is taking a class in Quick Books and makes a motion to approve up to $100 to cover the cost of the online class and the purchase of a book. Cline seconds the motion. McBride asks what Quick Books is? DeMarchi says we use it for our accounting. McBride asks if we are using it now? DeMarchi says that is what we've been using and Kathy has been working the last several weeks to get us all updated. DeMarchi goes on to say that he'll provide a little history. He says that back in 2010 we had an accountant who did us a great disservice and we paid him almost $800/month in accounting services and he provided us reports that were not generated out of Quick Books. Then he says, "What we've found out is that over the years these reports have been allowed to accumulate inaccurately, so now we are doing the updates and getting all the files up to date." McBride, "We need Kathy to have this experience because?" DeMarchi, "Because she does the majority of the work here on the accounting system." Cline says, "She's using Quick Books, now we have the system. It's just that it can be as sophisticated as you want it. There are things she already knows ...the basic procedures. There are more up to date...because they are always updating you know and improving the system and she needs to know more technically. Most businesses do use Quick Books. It's very common for retail and wholesale." DeMarchi, "and non profits". President Walton chimes in, "That also will make it a lot easier when Al ...to generate our reports." Cline, "payroll, checks". McBride, "What you're saying is between now and...Kathy will be able to do all our financial....." Cline, "Not necessarily". DeMarchi, "Later on we're going to talk about an accountant, under new business." Cline, "But they'll be in sync because most accountants..." McMillin, "Will this Quick Books also be compatible when we do our annual audits and that sort of thing?" DeMarchi, "Yes"
The motion regarding the expenditure for Kathy's training and book, passes.
COMMENTS:
Residents, this board is using the numb them, and then continue to dumb them down approach. I haven't gotten to the end of the tape yet, but did they try and sell you a BRIDGE, by the end of this meeting? What do I mean? First, they obviously decided behind closed doors to bring the accounting totally in house. These discussions NEVER OCCURRED at the board table. Why? Why do you allow it? Second, they dribble little pieces of information so they feel safe in saying, "I think we covered that." Remember, the only indication that we had that "things were a changing", was that in March DeMarchi said he had a job description - not a request for proposal, for the "accounting function". He called it first reading, NEVER READ IT, NEVER POSTED IT ON THE WPA WEBSITE as required by the BYLAWS. Then DeMarchi moves to inaccurate "dirt throwing" tactics, saying in 2010 an accountant did a disservice, charging almost $800/month, and these reports have been running and running. Let's get it straight. In 2009, after the in house TOPPS board and staff quit and left the association high and dry, a list of needs was developed, three CPA PROPOSALS reviewed, a CPA was hired. If reports have been running recklessly since then (I have visions from the movie with Dolly Parton and the copy machine that went wild), and Armistead ignored them, McMillin and his "accountant????" ignored them, Cline along with McMillin's "accountant????" and the management company ignored them, and Kathy was watching all this and ignored them, this is just irresponsibility, or a fake scare tactic! What ever it is, it paints a picture of a need for our accounting to go out of house, and a real CPA. Look at the history of dysfunction from the transitions that occur in treasurers and "accounting functions". NO ONE HAS TO SELL QUICK BOOKS, THEY JUST HAVE TO PROVIDE A CREDIBLE "CPA FIRM" TO DO OUR WORK WITH OUR LARGEST FINANCIAL ASSET.
President Walton chimes in that it will be easier for Al to do reports. We haven't had consistent reporting since the CPA left us. None of the treasurers have been happy with what they produced. They've all changed the format, claimed their idea was the greatest and the best. Cline chimes in and speaks about payroll and checks. Remember when everything is housed with the accountant they can't just write a check. Remember when we had the road mess and the treasurer claimed he had to write a contract without a total amount of contract, to have any contract, because two board members were pressing him to write the check? During the same period of time an audit revealed that board members were being reimbursed for expenses, without receipts. McMillin announced the findings during an annual meeting. When I was talking to DeMarchi about it he told me I was one of the people (I had volunteered on a Xmas project.) who was reimbursed without receipts. I told him it wasn't so. I could describe the receipts and I had given them to Kathy. She went through some things and handed them to me. Yup, they were the receipts I described. They weren't attached to anything and we had been audited and it was noted. This is good? The clandestine step your board is about to take, removes some of the checks and balances.
Finally, why is DeMarchi making this $100 motion? As a board member, he can spend a $100. I'd like this kind of OPENESS with an at the board table discussion, before the board decides to bring our accounting in house. You listen to the tape yourself, but I believe I heard him say, "Kathy IS TAKING A CLASS" and later something about she has been working on Quick Books for weeks! All -- after the fact. How much open discussion was there anywhere? McBride doesn't seem to have been informed. He is a board member, maybe just not in the inner circle. Hmmm, no one else on the board really questions this move. Don't we elect board members with equal power, who should be provided equal information to make INDEPENDENT voting decisions at the table in our behalf? Oh I forgot, they bring $100 issues to the board table and decide big items in closed meetings.
We'll get back to "the rest of the story" regarding the "accounting function", when we review the tape for new business. That is when DeMarchi told McBride that the rest would be spelled out. DeMarchi, "Later on we're going to talk about an accountant, under new business." Basically, he is telling a fellow board member, "you wait, and I'll tell you what wa decided, and just maybe we didn't bother to include you."Want to place a bet? I'll bet you that we don't have a CPA!
(2) DE MARCHI TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SIGN
Remember the sign that appeared at the front gate over the Easter weekend that advised residents that assessments were late. Thank DeMarchi. He claimed responsibility for it during the April meeting. He said, "We found that William Douglas had made some inaccurate mailings. OK, they had sent assessment mailings to peoples' lots and the other thing was real distressing was that we found that of all the people who hadn't paid their late fees at the time that this came about, 37% of the people who were delinquent under 2013 fees did not have a working phone, or a phone number to contact them, here in the office. Ok, I take responsibility for that sign. I thought it was a way to get people to pay up. We got a lot of flack over that." He goes on to say that he called all past due 2013 residents. This resulted in several paying. He goes on to give a run down of how many owe, how many should go to lien, etc. Cline called the sign tacky.
COMMENTS:
We won't spend a lot of time on this. I agree with Cline the sign was tacky. DeMarchi's comments about the sign and William Douglas, just don't make sense. Rather, they appear to be more blame, in an effort to make one look good. It misses the boat completely. First, if William Douglas did send inaccurate mailings, who provided them the records to do it? Do you think they just pulled information out of the air? Garbage sent to them, garbage out! How did DeMarchi call EVERY DELINQUENT 2013 resident, if 37% didn't have working phones? If the records we sent from our office to William Douglas were not correct, why should we trust this board to bring accounting in house?
(3) DE MARCHI INFORMS US THAT HE HAS TO REVISE THE 2013 BUDGET
DeMarchi, "I would like to call the Finance Committee to meet the first of May and submit a revised budget at the May Meeting, based upon the fact that we will no longer have a management company and other significant changes to the budget."
COMMENTS:
Sometimes, it is necessary to revise a budget. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the fact that due to all the behind closed door tactics of this board, I lack trust in what we will get, and how it really will help us.
The Treasurer's Report breaks down into three items.
(1) QUICK BOOKS:
Almost immediately, DeMarchi brings a motion to the table. He says Kathy is taking a class in Quick Books and makes a motion to approve up to $100 to cover the cost of the online class and the purchase of a book. Cline seconds the motion. McBride asks what Quick Books is? DeMarchi says we use it for our accounting. McBride asks if we are using it now? DeMarchi says that is what we've been using and Kathy has been working the last several weeks to get us all updated. DeMarchi goes on to say that he'll provide a little history. He says that back in 2010 we had an accountant who did us a great disservice and we paid him almost $800/month in accounting services and he provided us reports that were not generated out of Quick Books. Then he says, "What we've found out is that over the years these reports have been allowed to accumulate inaccurately, so now we are doing the updates and getting all the files up to date." McBride, "We need Kathy to have this experience because?" DeMarchi, "Because she does the majority of the work here on the accounting system." Cline says, "She's using Quick Books, now we have the system. It's just that it can be as sophisticated as you want it. There are things she already knows ...the basic procedures. There are more up to date...because they are always updating you know and improving the system and she needs to know more technically. Most businesses do use Quick Books. It's very common for retail and wholesale." DeMarchi, "and non profits". President Walton chimes in, "That also will make it a lot easier when Al ...to generate our reports." Cline, "payroll, checks". McBride, "What you're saying is between now and...Kathy will be able to do all our financial....." Cline, "Not necessarily". DeMarchi, "Later on we're going to talk about an accountant, under new business." Cline, "But they'll be in sync because most accountants..." McMillin, "Will this Quick Books also be compatible when we do our annual audits and that sort of thing?" DeMarchi, "Yes"
The motion regarding the expenditure for Kathy's training and book, passes.
COMMENTS:
Residents, this board is using the numb them, and then continue to dumb them down approach. I haven't gotten to the end of the tape yet, but did they try and sell you a BRIDGE, by the end of this meeting? What do I mean? First, they obviously decided behind closed doors to bring the accounting totally in house. These discussions NEVER OCCURRED at the board table. Why? Why do you allow it? Second, they dribble little pieces of information so they feel safe in saying, "I think we covered that." Remember, the only indication that we had that "things were a changing", was that in March DeMarchi said he had a job description - not a request for proposal, for the "accounting function". He called it first reading, NEVER READ IT, NEVER POSTED IT ON THE WPA WEBSITE as required by the BYLAWS. Then DeMarchi moves to inaccurate "dirt throwing" tactics, saying in 2010 an accountant did a disservice, charging almost $800/month, and these reports have been running and running. Let's get it straight. In 2009, after the in house TOPPS board and staff quit and left the association high and dry, a list of needs was developed, three CPA PROPOSALS reviewed, a CPA was hired. If reports have been running recklessly since then (I have visions from the movie with Dolly Parton and the copy machine that went wild), and Armistead ignored them, McMillin and his "accountant????" ignored them, Cline along with McMillin's "accountant????" and the management company ignored them, and Kathy was watching all this and ignored them, this is just irresponsibility, or a fake scare tactic! What ever it is, it paints a picture of a need for our accounting to go out of house, and a real CPA. Look at the history of dysfunction from the transitions that occur in treasurers and "accounting functions". NO ONE HAS TO SELL QUICK BOOKS, THEY JUST HAVE TO PROVIDE A CREDIBLE "CPA FIRM" TO DO OUR WORK WITH OUR LARGEST FINANCIAL ASSET.
President Walton chimes in that it will be easier for Al to do reports. We haven't had consistent reporting since the CPA left us. None of the treasurers have been happy with what they produced. They've all changed the format, claimed their idea was the greatest and the best. Cline chimes in and speaks about payroll and checks. Remember when everything is housed with the accountant they can't just write a check. Remember when we had the road mess and the treasurer claimed he had to write a contract without a total amount of contract, to have any contract, because two board members were pressing him to write the check? During the same period of time an audit revealed that board members were being reimbursed for expenses, without receipts. McMillin announced the findings during an annual meeting. When I was talking to DeMarchi about it he told me I was one of the people (I had volunteered on a Xmas project.) who was reimbursed without receipts. I told him it wasn't so. I could describe the receipts and I had given them to Kathy. She went through some things and handed them to me. Yup, they were the receipts I described. They weren't attached to anything and we had been audited and it was noted. This is good? The clandestine step your board is about to take, removes some of the checks and balances.
Finally, why is DeMarchi making this $100 motion? As a board member, he can spend a $100. I'd like this kind of OPENESS with an at the board table discussion, before the board decides to bring our accounting in house. You listen to the tape yourself, but I believe I heard him say, "Kathy IS TAKING A CLASS" and later something about she has been working on Quick Books for weeks! All -- after the fact. How much open discussion was there anywhere? McBride doesn't seem to have been informed. He is a board member, maybe just not in the inner circle. Hmmm, no one else on the board really questions this move. Don't we elect board members with equal power, who should be provided equal information to make INDEPENDENT voting decisions at the table in our behalf? Oh I forgot, they bring $100 issues to the board table and decide big items in closed meetings.
We'll get back to "the rest of the story" regarding the "accounting function", when we review the tape for new business. That is when DeMarchi told McBride that the rest would be spelled out. DeMarchi, "Later on we're going to talk about an accountant, under new business." Basically, he is telling a fellow board member, "you wait, and I'll tell you what wa decided, and just maybe we didn't bother to include you."Want to place a bet? I'll bet you that we don't have a CPA!
(2) DE MARCHI TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SIGN
Remember the sign that appeared at the front gate over the Easter weekend that advised residents that assessments were late. Thank DeMarchi. He claimed responsibility for it during the April meeting. He said, "We found that William Douglas had made some inaccurate mailings. OK, they had sent assessment mailings to peoples' lots and the other thing was real distressing was that we found that of all the people who hadn't paid their late fees at the time that this came about, 37% of the people who were delinquent under 2013 fees did not have a working phone, or a phone number to contact them, here in the office. Ok, I take responsibility for that sign. I thought it was a way to get people to pay up. We got a lot of flack over that." He goes on to say that he called all past due 2013 residents. This resulted in several paying. He goes on to give a run down of how many owe, how many should go to lien, etc. Cline called the sign tacky.
COMMENTS:
We won't spend a lot of time on this. I agree with Cline the sign was tacky. DeMarchi's comments about the sign and William Douglas, just don't make sense. Rather, they appear to be more blame, in an effort to make one look good. It misses the boat completely. First, if William Douglas did send inaccurate mailings, who provided them the records to do it? Do you think they just pulled information out of the air? Garbage sent to them, garbage out! How did DeMarchi call EVERY DELINQUENT 2013 resident, if 37% didn't have working phones? If the records we sent from our office to William Douglas were not correct, why should we trust this board to bring accounting in house?
(3) DE MARCHI INFORMS US THAT HE HAS TO REVISE THE 2013 BUDGET
DeMarchi, "I would like to call the Finance Committee to meet the first of May and submit a revised budget at the May Meeting, based upon the fact that we will no longer have a management company and other significant changes to the budget."
COMMENTS:
Sometimes, it is necessary to revise a budget. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the fact that due to all the behind closed door tactics of this board, I lack trust in what we will get, and how it really will help us.
Monday, April 22, 2013
PART I: THE APRIL 16 WPA BOARD MEETING - APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - SOMEONE SHOULD CALL IT FOUL - IT SMELLS AND IT CONSTITUES AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE RULES
I've listened to the tape of the April 16 WPA board meeting. I'm not going to transcribe every word of each report. I'm reporting what I heard to the best of my ability. Please listen to the tape yourself. TRANSCRIPTION IS UNDERLINED.
All of the board members are present for this meeting except John Walton. As they move to the first items on the agenda, we come to approval of the minutes. Progress, thankfully, is halted by McBride, who has questions. He says, "Larry look at the addendum, your report there and if you look at the last full paragraph- the canal maintenance proposal" DeMarchi, "page 5". McBride goes over the figures as to what canal lot owners would have to pay. The figures don't add up. McMillin explains some of the problem by saying that there was a typing error, and then adds that the figures were for a 5 year period of time. He's using $640 per year for canal lot owners for 5 years. His plan looks at dredging 5 years from the last dredge. McBride reminds him that he said two years. Garrison jumps in and asks what the original said, was it the same as this? DeMarchi says, yes. Garrison then says, "that would be how the minutes would be accepted even if it is wrong, because that's what the report was." Jacky Walton says, "Larry stated that that was his opinion." McMillin, "All those figures were approximate and I believe I made mention up front that these were just approximations. They were only my...nothing was set in stone. They were just from information that I had gathered and I believe I may even have mentioned there may be mistakes involved. It was a proposal only. It was just a guess." McBride, "it would be nice to have reported correct numbers, if you could." McMillin, "Alright, Alright." Cline, "I have a comment. These are shown before the meeting for any board members to make corrections or comments". McBride, "This was not. This was given to us at the meeting." Cline, "Ok, at the last meeting, so you've had a month." McBride, "We didn't get them at the meeting. Larry ....." Cline, "I'm just asking that we do this before the meeting, so we don't take another 10 minutes to hash over stuff that we could discuss before the meeting." McBride, "Corrections....we shouldn't ask for them?" DeMarchi, "Well John, it's not a correction to the minutes." Garrison, "The addendum was presented as you see it, right, wrong, or indifferent. I agree that the numbers don't add up. I think that, I think we all agree that the numbers don't add up, but in terms of the minutes, this is a copy of what was presented last month. As such, I don't see where you can change it. It's not an explanation of what took place at the meeting. It is a verbatim recitation of what was presented. So in my mind there is no need to amend it. You're not amending the minutes. You'd be amending Larry's report. I don't think that's proper." Cline, "No, it's not" Garrison, "Even though you are correct that it is wrong." McMillin, "We don't even have any firm numbers to do this with." Cline, "All right, let's not get this (laughing). Can we approve the minutes?" A vote is taken and the minutes are approved.
COMMENTS:
It was difficult to sort all of this out from a solid administrative perspective. We'll start at the very beginning.
*McMillin's canal proposal was listed as a March agenda item. He presented the proposal in line with the agenda. He presented it after the meeting was called to order and before the meeting was adjourned. This proposal should appear in the minutes of the meeting. Why was the proposal a so called, "addendum"? It SOUNDS like (listening to the tape) that the board was asked to approve the March minutes WITHOUT a review of the addendum proposal. WHY? As secretary, why does Cline question McBride? Why does Garrison, and at times, DeMarchi, both support and knock down John's questioning, and not question why it isn't contained in the minutes?
*McMillin jumps in and says it was a guess, some figures HE pulled together. A few more questions. How did McMillin get a speaking, presentation part on the official WPA March agenda with a WATER AMENITIES TOPIC? I've done some research and I've checked with two people on the WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE and there wasn't an official WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE MEETING called to develop and outline this proposal. In fact, where was the committee in this and where was the WATER AMENITIES CHAIR, John Walton? My own thoughts are that it is entirely possible that once again, your board is ignoring, going around certain board members, and basic committee structure and function, in this "old boys" network - "I'll wash your back, you wash mine", to pull off some of the ridiculous moves that follow in almost all of our meetings! Dependent on your Wedgefield political convictions, this might appear to suit your agenda. Over the long haul it will come back to bite you and these good old boys, in the backside - royally. Once again, I ask you and the board, how these rash actions would stand up in court if it came to that? Far fetched? I don't think so. What is sick is that you have both sides of the 2009 lawsuit sitting at that table and they seem to forget that it could happen again.
*We go from bad to worse. As the figures are questioned, McMillin adds that this proposal is based on dredging 5 years since the last dredge. Think about it. Our last dredge started with work on the spoil site (remember McMillin has land grabbed that too) in late 2009 and completed in early 2010. We are in 2013. Does that mean that his proposal would have us dredging in 2015? Yet, McMillin doesn't bother to tell you how they will legally handle what is going to end up being "differential assessments"? Canal lot owners would pay more. In March, Garrison tells canal lot owners to start putting money in jars. Is McMillin planning on "back billing" canal lot owners at $640/year for 3 or 4 years?
*Remember at the March meeting, McMillin throws out professional expertise, and ramrods his figures. MY SPECULATION is that he wants to back the dredging figure down to accommodate what DeMarchi decided would be the accumulated canal reserve. I'll wash your back, you wash mine?
Finally, where did the rules governing meeting minutes, structure, real committee work, etc., go? Right down the drain. Who is responsible? Those board members who allow a board member, or members, to put an item on the agenda that doesn't come out of committee, ignore board members who legitimately question, and then start playing with terms like minutes and addendum's? Remember board, that just because you sanitize the minutes, doesn't mean these items won't come out just the way you let it happen, because there are tapes of the meetings. We can hear what you won't put in the minutes. Possibly, a court will hear what you wouldn't put in the minutes. Will you be able to defend your actions?
All of the board members are present for this meeting except John Walton. As they move to the first items on the agenda, we come to approval of the minutes. Progress, thankfully, is halted by McBride, who has questions. He says, "Larry look at the addendum, your report there and if you look at the last full paragraph- the canal maintenance proposal" DeMarchi, "page 5". McBride goes over the figures as to what canal lot owners would have to pay. The figures don't add up. McMillin explains some of the problem by saying that there was a typing error, and then adds that the figures were for a 5 year period of time. He's using $640 per year for canal lot owners for 5 years. His plan looks at dredging 5 years from the last dredge. McBride reminds him that he said two years. Garrison jumps in and asks what the original said, was it the same as this? DeMarchi says, yes. Garrison then says, "that would be how the minutes would be accepted even if it is wrong, because that's what the report was." Jacky Walton says, "Larry stated that that was his opinion." McMillin, "All those figures were approximate and I believe I made mention up front that these were just approximations. They were only my...nothing was set in stone. They were just from information that I had gathered and I believe I may even have mentioned there may be mistakes involved. It was a proposal only. It was just a guess." McBride, "it would be nice to have reported correct numbers, if you could." McMillin, "Alright, Alright." Cline, "I have a comment. These are shown before the meeting for any board members to make corrections or comments". McBride, "This was not. This was given to us at the meeting." Cline, "Ok, at the last meeting, so you've had a month." McBride, "We didn't get them at the meeting. Larry ....." Cline, "I'm just asking that we do this before the meeting, so we don't take another 10 minutes to hash over stuff that we could discuss before the meeting." McBride, "Corrections....we shouldn't ask for them?" DeMarchi, "Well John, it's not a correction to the minutes." Garrison, "The addendum was presented as you see it, right, wrong, or indifferent. I agree that the numbers don't add up. I think that, I think we all agree that the numbers don't add up, but in terms of the minutes, this is a copy of what was presented last month. As such, I don't see where you can change it. It's not an explanation of what took place at the meeting. It is a verbatim recitation of what was presented. So in my mind there is no need to amend it. You're not amending the minutes. You'd be amending Larry's report. I don't think that's proper." Cline, "No, it's not" Garrison, "Even though you are correct that it is wrong." McMillin, "We don't even have any firm numbers to do this with." Cline, "All right, let's not get this (laughing). Can we approve the minutes?" A vote is taken and the minutes are approved.
COMMENTS:
It was difficult to sort all of this out from a solid administrative perspective. We'll start at the very beginning.
*McMillin's canal proposal was listed as a March agenda item. He presented the proposal in line with the agenda. He presented it after the meeting was called to order and before the meeting was adjourned. This proposal should appear in the minutes of the meeting. Why was the proposal a so called, "addendum"? It SOUNDS like (listening to the tape) that the board was asked to approve the March minutes WITHOUT a review of the addendum proposal. WHY? As secretary, why does Cline question McBride? Why does Garrison, and at times, DeMarchi, both support and knock down John's questioning, and not question why it isn't contained in the minutes?
*McMillin jumps in and says it was a guess, some figures HE pulled together. A few more questions. How did McMillin get a speaking, presentation part on the official WPA March agenda with a WATER AMENITIES TOPIC? I've done some research and I've checked with two people on the WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE and there wasn't an official WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE MEETING called to develop and outline this proposal. In fact, where was the committee in this and where was the WATER AMENITIES CHAIR, John Walton? My own thoughts are that it is entirely possible that once again, your board is ignoring, going around certain board members, and basic committee structure and function, in this "old boys" network - "I'll wash your back, you wash mine", to pull off some of the ridiculous moves that follow in almost all of our meetings! Dependent on your Wedgefield political convictions, this might appear to suit your agenda. Over the long haul it will come back to bite you and these good old boys, in the backside - royally. Once again, I ask you and the board, how these rash actions would stand up in court if it came to that? Far fetched? I don't think so. What is sick is that you have both sides of the 2009 lawsuit sitting at that table and they seem to forget that it could happen again.
*We go from bad to worse. As the figures are questioned, McMillin adds that this proposal is based on dredging 5 years since the last dredge. Think about it. Our last dredge started with work on the spoil site (remember McMillin has land grabbed that too) in late 2009 and completed in early 2010. We are in 2013. Does that mean that his proposal would have us dredging in 2015? Yet, McMillin doesn't bother to tell you how they will legally handle what is going to end up being "differential assessments"? Canal lot owners would pay more. In March, Garrison tells canal lot owners to start putting money in jars. Is McMillin planning on "back billing" canal lot owners at $640/year for 3 or 4 years?
*Remember at the March meeting, McMillin throws out professional expertise, and ramrods his figures. MY SPECULATION is that he wants to back the dredging figure down to accommodate what DeMarchi decided would be the accumulated canal reserve. I'll wash your back, you wash mine?
Finally, where did the rules governing meeting minutes, structure, real committee work, etc., go? Right down the drain. Who is responsible? Those board members who allow a board member, or members, to put an item on the agenda that doesn't come out of committee, ignore board members who legitimately question, and then start playing with terms like minutes and addendum's? Remember board, that just because you sanitize the minutes, doesn't mean these items won't come out just the way you let it happen, because there are tapes of the meetings. We can hear what you won't put in the minutes. Possibly, a court will hear what you wouldn't put in the minutes. Will you be able to defend your actions?
Sunday, April 21, 2013
VISIT THE WEDGEFIELD TIMES TODAY - IT IS IMPORTANT
The Wedgefield Examiner has been "out" taking care of some family business. I missed the April 16th board meeting, but I'm not "missing out", thanks to The Wedgefield Times. It is the only place to go to get everything related to the WPA board meetings. The Wedgefield Times posts the agenda, financials, and provides a tape of the meeting, with an associated time grid. If you are interested in starting to listen with a particular report in mind, you have a close approximate time noted as to where in the tape it will start.
I encourage everyone to read Vaughan's narrative of the meeting. If you haven't been attending, perhaps after reading this, you'll get there.
In the meantime, The Wedgefield Examiner is listening to the April meeting tape and preparing articles.
THANK YOU RANDY VAUGHAN FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS AND FOR "THE WEDGEFIELD TIMES" !!!!
I encourage everyone to read Vaughan's narrative of the meeting. If you haven't been attending, perhaps after reading this, you'll get there.
In the meantime, The Wedgefield Examiner is listening to the April meeting tape and preparing articles.
THANK YOU RANDY VAUGHAN FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS AND FOR "THE WEDGEFIELD TIMES" !!!!
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
TODAY IS THE WPA BOARD MEETING. WILL YOU ATTEND?
The Wedgfield Examiner has been out for a few days. We've had a major surgery in our family. One of the children from Connecticut has come to help and check on "Dad". I won't be able to attend the meeting, but I'll be counting on the Wedgefield Times to listen to the tape. Can't wait to listen and get an update on the WPA activities.
Please plan on attending.
The Wedgefield Examiner will start posting articles again on Saturday!
Please plan on attending.
The Wedgefield Examiner will start posting articles again on Saturday!
Thursday, April 11, 2013
PART III: THE CANAL PROPOSAL
I've listened to the tape of the March 19th WPA board meeting. I'm not going to transcribe every word of each report. I'm reporting what I heard to the best of my ability. Please listen to the tape yourself. NOTE: If you don't listen to any other part of the tape, this portion is important, it is an exhibit, a telling of much that is wrong with this board. If you listen for logic, solid foundation, principles, etc., you won't find it. Parts of the article will be transcribed and in quotes (blue print and underlined) to the best of my ability, other portions - not, my comments will be in red. P.S.: Please don't think that I fail to understand that this is a discussion/proposal. However, this board has had snippets of discussion in the past, gone under the clock of "closed meetings", and surfaced like they did with the "accounting function" and really made all the decisions, behind our backs.
PART III begins with Garrison speaking. " A couple of things....Al, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is money that has been set aside specifically to deal with canal maintenance. That doesn't necessarily mean it has to be spent on canal maintenance. Money is flexible. Don't think it is fair to say....looking at potential. Number 2, I think this board has made it clear it isn't opposed to the concept of shared responsibility. I don't know what the next board is going to do, but the majority of this board's feeling is that had....kept within a process that didn't increase assessments that....canal lot owners would likely fly pretty well if we get this assessment. Now, the question was asked a couple of years ago if this could have been done without assessment going up, how much objection would there have been. Felt it would have been less than it turned out to be. This board has contemplated the idea of setting money aside for some of this. The spoil itself, I don't believe there is any question. The WPA owns the spoil site, so the spoil site, in terms of maintaining it, is our responsibility. In fact, we just spent a couple of thousand dollars doing just that.
The problem I have is conceptually, even if the WPA were to contribute a given amount of money. What we've been looking at and I don't think this is a secret to anybody....discussion...I've had somewhere in $30 - $32,000 a year range in terms of set aside money for canals. There would be a reduction in assessments at the end of this year...The problem is the administration. We proposed a separate regime, a sub regime, whatever you would like to call it, to canal owners. We asked them essentially whether they would be in favor, or against such a proposal. Am I correct? In December or January, you reported back the results of that, of which there were 23 respondents, out of 79. Think about that."
DeMarchi: "12 were favorable. 11 were....
Garrison: About evenly opposed. The majority of canal lot owners didn't respond. One interpretation can be - if their not interested enough whether they dredge, why should WPA be? I don't take that approach because it may not be the proper interpretation - that lack of response. The problem is as soon as you talk about the canal lot owners as a group, how do you come up with a certain amount money? Who is going to administrate that? That's why....tried to get sub association, for exactly that reason. The WPA, at least this WPA, has no interest in administrating this and is trying to enforce canal lot owners to kick over this many dollars. We've done that. We've been there. It's still costing us money for having done it. That a fact. You still got several unpaid from original $5,000 assessment."
COMMENTS:
Garrison does have more to say and we will continue. I had to stop and comment. A few key points to look back at and consider, that make the discussion by McMillin and Garrison unpalatable.
*In earlier parts McMillin says he hopes the Reserve Study will add information. Garrison states that the board has been setting money aside for the canals. Remember, any reserve type set aside we do have has been through figures and assigned percentages, developed by DeMarchi, who told the residents it had to be done for either tax or audit purposes. He didn't even bring his percentages of assignment to the board table to be read aloud, but did begin to draw money over expenses, from his formula, directly into reserves, monthly. His assignment meant little, really? It directly involved our monies. The Reserve Study contract basically says that if you have an asset that was not determined by a previous reserve study, that it will cost more to build that foundation. Please tell me that the figures of DeMarchi and McMillin, will not be used to cover the canal asset. I have absolutely no trust.
*Garrison speaks to the low response of the canal lot owners to the regime survey, as possibly being an indication of interest in dredging. Really?? We've discussed the survey enough. Garbage in, garbage out. Don't put the poor survey development, a board function, on the heads of the canal lot owners.
*Garrison doesn't believe the WPA wants to get involved with the administration of this. Why, some of those canal owners still owe $5,000 on the last dredging assessment! Pardon me, but wasn't he one of the Bob's that sent that letter to every resident telling them to hold their assessments in escrow at Anderson bank? Additionally, this board shoots any sound collection on any assessments, including 2013, right in the foot! Finally, if he or anybody else on that board doesn't want to administer a project for 79 residents, they are disavowing themselves of their duties and should get off the board.
RESUME WITH GARRISON: Garrison goes on to explain where they are in collections with some of the properties. We pick up transcriptions here: "But the whole process comes down to how you administer this. ......Why would the WPA be enforcing something, or involved in something.... the canal lot owners side here to be voluntary right?
McMillin: "Unless you us the same logic that....
Garrison: I think the point here, and best part of your proposal is recognition that canal lot owners as a group - if they expect there's expectation that something is going to get done down the road then....within next 2-3 years - maintenance dredge....needs to be understood that they better start putting pennies in a jar. They need to start planning ahead for this because there is going to be a bill and a substantial one. How substantial depends on how much yardage... I think this board has tried and is not against the idea of WPA contributing to that in some fashion. I really don't believe, among the membership that there is a tremendous amount of objection. If there is, I'm sure I'll hear about it after, but right now.... I felt that in a certain moderation that that would not be particularly objectionable.
COMMENTS:
There is more to the tape regarding this subject. It is going to be a surprise to all of us because I haven't listened to it, or attempted to transcribe it. There will be a part IV.
First, as far as the canal owners part being voluntary, I don't think there is a prayer. Why would anyone just hand over the funds. Your board is responsible to administer and they need to develop a concrete plan with a thought that their actions could stand up in court, assess according to plan, collect according to sound practices, and tell all - not just canal lot owners, what section and verbiage from the by-laws that they are doing it under.
STAY TUNED FOR PART V.
`
PART III begins with Garrison speaking. " A couple of things....Al, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is money that has been set aside specifically to deal with canal maintenance. That doesn't necessarily mean it has to be spent on canal maintenance. Money is flexible. Don't think it is fair to say....looking at potential. Number 2, I think this board has made it clear it isn't opposed to the concept of shared responsibility. I don't know what the next board is going to do, but the majority of this board's feeling is that had....kept within a process that didn't increase assessments that....canal lot owners would likely fly pretty well if we get this assessment. Now, the question was asked a couple of years ago if this could have been done without assessment going up, how much objection would there have been. Felt it would have been less than it turned out to be. This board has contemplated the idea of setting money aside for some of this. The spoil itself, I don't believe there is any question. The WPA owns the spoil site, so the spoil site, in terms of maintaining it, is our responsibility. In fact, we just spent a couple of thousand dollars doing just that.
The problem I have is conceptually, even if the WPA were to contribute a given amount of money. What we've been looking at and I don't think this is a secret to anybody....discussion...I've had somewhere in $30 - $32,000 a year range in terms of set aside money for canals. There would be a reduction in assessments at the end of this year...The problem is the administration. We proposed a separate regime, a sub regime, whatever you would like to call it, to canal owners. We asked them essentially whether they would be in favor, or against such a proposal. Am I correct? In December or January, you reported back the results of that, of which there were 23 respondents, out of 79. Think about that."
DeMarchi: "12 were favorable. 11 were....
Garrison: About evenly opposed. The majority of canal lot owners didn't respond. One interpretation can be - if their not interested enough whether they dredge, why should WPA be? I don't take that approach because it may not be the proper interpretation - that lack of response. The problem is as soon as you talk about the canal lot owners as a group, how do you come up with a certain amount money? Who is going to administrate that? That's why....tried to get sub association, for exactly that reason. The WPA, at least this WPA, has no interest in administrating this and is trying to enforce canal lot owners to kick over this many dollars. We've done that. We've been there. It's still costing us money for having done it. That a fact. You still got several unpaid from original $5,000 assessment."
COMMENTS:
Garrison does have more to say and we will continue. I had to stop and comment. A few key points to look back at and consider, that make the discussion by McMillin and Garrison unpalatable.
*In earlier parts McMillin says he hopes the Reserve Study will add information. Garrison states that the board has been setting money aside for the canals. Remember, any reserve type set aside we do have has been through figures and assigned percentages, developed by DeMarchi, who told the residents it had to be done for either tax or audit purposes. He didn't even bring his percentages of assignment to the board table to be read aloud, but did begin to draw money over expenses, from his formula, directly into reserves, monthly. His assignment meant little, really? It directly involved our monies. The Reserve Study contract basically says that if you have an asset that was not determined by a previous reserve study, that it will cost more to build that foundation. Please tell me that the figures of DeMarchi and McMillin, will not be used to cover the canal asset. I have absolutely no trust.
*Garrison speaks to the low response of the canal lot owners to the regime survey, as possibly being an indication of interest in dredging. Really?? We've discussed the survey enough. Garbage in, garbage out. Don't put the poor survey development, a board function, on the heads of the canal lot owners.
*Garrison doesn't believe the WPA wants to get involved with the administration of this. Why, some of those canal owners still owe $5,000 on the last dredging assessment! Pardon me, but wasn't he one of the Bob's that sent that letter to every resident telling them to hold their assessments in escrow at Anderson bank? Additionally, this board shoots any sound collection on any assessments, including 2013, right in the foot! Finally, if he or anybody else on that board doesn't want to administer a project for 79 residents, they are disavowing themselves of their duties and should get off the board.
RESUME WITH GARRISON: Garrison goes on to explain where they are in collections with some of the properties. We pick up transcriptions here: "But the whole process comes down to how you administer this. ......Why would the WPA be enforcing something, or involved in something.... the canal lot owners side here to be voluntary right?
McMillin: "Unless you us the same logic that....
Garrison: I think the point here, and best part of your proposal is recognition that canal lot owners as a group - if they expect there's expectation that something is going to get done down the road then....within next 2-3 years - maintenance dredge....needs to be understood that they better start putting pennies in a jar. They need to start planning ahead for this because there is going to be a bill and a substantial one. How substantial depends on how much yardage... I think this board has tried and is not against the idea of WPA contributing to that in some fashion. I really don't believe, among the membership that there is a tremendous amount of objection. If there is, I'm sure I'll hear about it after, but right now.... I felt that in a certain moderation that that would not be particularly objectionable.
COMMENTS:
There is more to the tape regarding this subject. It is going to be a surprise to all of us because I haven't listened to it, or attempted to transcribe it. There will be a part IV.
First, as far as the canal owners part being voluntary, I don't think there is a prayer. Why would anyone just hand over the funds. Your board is responsible to administer and they need to develop a concrete plan with a thought that their actions could stand up in court, assess according to plan, collect according to sound practices, and tell all - not just canal lot owners, what section and verbiage from the by-laws that they are doing it under.
STAY TUNED FOR PART V.
`
PART II: THE CANAL PROPOSAL
I've listened to the tape of the March 19th WPA board meeting. I'm not going to transcribe every word of each report. I'm reporting what I heard to the best of my ability. Please listen to the tape yourself. NOTE: If you don't listen to any other part of the tape, this portion is important, it is an exhibit, a telling of much that is wrong with this board. If you listen for logic, solid foundation, principles, etc., you won't find it. Parts of the article will be transcribed and in quotes (blue print and underlined) to the best of my ability, other portions - not, my comments will be in red. P.S.: Please don't think that I fail to understand that this is a discussion/proposal. However, this board has had snippets of discussion in the past, gone under the clock of "closed meetings", and surfaced like they did with the "accounting function" and really made all the decisions, behind our backs.
'PART II, WE PICK UP WITH MC MILLIN'S WORDS:
"Now lets talk about some costs. Earth Works calculates that approximately 2/3 have filled back in......I find that hard to believe.....Yes, the north canal is heavily silted due to factors that was miscalculated during the last dredge. MY GUESS is closer to 50%, or slightly less. Some of this is predicted because of the ways the canals were cleared, how the canals were dredged. Earth Works suggests that a maintenance dredge be performed within 3-5 years to sustain the useful life of the canals for an additional 10 years or longer. If you use MY GUESSES, instead of theirs, the cost to dredge today would be around $300,000, not counting all the additional fees they want to add, as far as the hydrologic survey, telegraphic survey?????...the fees for administrating and all that.....IF WE ALLOW THAT to happen. At the time we dredged the last time we were told that to raise the dikes of the spoil site higher than needed at the time and that the site would need no additional prep for a maintenance dredge. Now they change that...." He goes on to list the potential cost of some of these surveys.
Again with McMillin's words: "If we are allowed to use what we have, the cost would be $195,000 for the canal lot owners and $105 for WPA. Since nothing has been planned or set aside for three years, we are that far behind in this plan. We can extrapolate that, an additional 18 - 20,000 yards will accumulate in the next two years. Let's break that figure down. It's 70,000 yards, as opposed to 50, which is my...with a dredging cost of $6 per yard, that would equal $420,000 or $168,000 for WPA and $250,000 for..." (difficult to catch some figures) We pick up with McMillin again: "Each canal owner should besetting aside approximately $640.00 per year to pay their share of the dredging cost. If we do it in the next two years....for a total of $3,300. Each canal owner will pay about $64 per month . LET'S HOPE THE RESERVE STUDY DEFINES THOSE FIGURES EVEN MORE. Like I say, this is a general proposal. It's and idea.... We can't get much more FAIR than that. The canal owners.......Reasonable solution.......Get something in place so when the bill.....We'll just pay the bill and move on."
COMMENTS:
Quite frankly, I'm glad McMillin started his proposal with the information about the spoil site, not wanting to get bids, and attaching the work to the grounds contract. (Part I). There were times in that discussion that I thought indicated he had sought information from Earth Works. Again, I'd like to see it in writing. I'll write the board and ask for it. In Part two, HE kicks Earth Works to the side. It is how HE VIEWS the numbers. Residents, canal lot owner, or not, this is the same old pattern of this board. I, or WE, on the board have expertise in all things. We don't need expertise, we have it. REALLY???? Don't begin to tell me what I'm going to pay on another one of their haphazard, half baked, projects. I will pay NOTHING on anything that isn't properly studied, engineering plans developed, and overseen by a reputable source! I won't entertain "putting aside money' to fund a sloppy project after all the hell the 2009 board went through on a project that was well designed, documented, followed by experts, every step reviewed by our attorney, and a lawsuit brought not only against the board, but individual board members. I won't pay anything toward any canal project that differs from residents off the canals, until they tell me EXACTLY - word for word, what part of the governing documents allow them to do. McMillin has thrown his figures out, told me what to put aside, but hasn't bothered to tell me HOW, under what legal authority the board entertains doing that.
Once again, where was Water Amenities? Remember, when they had the dock project - both of them. They hired EXPERTS to design and oversee the work. They put the project out to bid. As a canal lot owner, I'm tired of being the step child of Wedgefield.
STAY TUNED. PART III, GARRISON SPEAKS
'PART II, WE PICK UP WITH MC MILLIN'S WORDS:
"Now lets talk about some costs. Earth Works calculates that approximately 2/3 have filled back in......I find that hard to believe.....Yes, the north canal is heavily silted due to factors that was miscalculated during the last dredge. MY GUESS is closer to 50%, or slightly less. Some of this is predicted because of the ways the canals were cleared, how the canals were dredged. Earth Works suggests that a maintenance dredge be performed within 3-5 years to sustain the useful life of the canals for an additional 10 years or longer. If you use MY GUESSES, instead of theirs, the cost to dredge today would be around $300,000, not counting all the additional fees they want to add, as far as the hydrologic survey, telegraphic survey?????...the fees for administrating and all that.....IF WE ALLOW THAT to happen. At the time we dredged the last time we were told that to raise the dikes of the spoil site higher than needed at the time and that the site would need no additional prep for a maintenance dredge. Now they change that...." He goes on to list the potential cost of some of these surveys.
Again with McMillin's words: "If we are allowed to use what we have, the cost would be $195,000 for the canal lot owners and $105 for WPA. Since nothing has been planned or set aside for three years, we are that far behind in this plan. We can extrapolate that, an additional 18 - 20,000 yards will accumulate in the next two years. Let's break that figure down. It's 70,000 yards, as opposed to 50, which is my...with a dredging cost of $6 per yard, that would equal $420,000 or $168,000 for WPA and $250,000 for..." (difficult to catch some figures) We pick up with McMillin again: "Each canal owner should besetting aside approximately $640.00 per year to pay their share of the dredging cost. If we do it in the next two years....for a total of $3,300. Each canal owner will pay about $64 per month . LET'S HOPE THE RESERVE STUDY DEFINES THOSE FIGURES EVEN MORE. Like I say, this is a general proposal. It's and idea.... We can't get much more FAIR than that. The canal owners.......Reasonable solution.......Get something in place so when the bill.....We'll just pay the bill and move on."
COMMENTS:
Quite frankly, I'm glad McMillin started his proposal with the information about the spoil site, not wanting to get bids, and attaching the work to the grounds contract. (Part I). There were times in that discussion that I thought indicated he had sought information from Earth Works. Again, I'd like to see it in writing. I'll write the board and ask for it. In Part two, HE kicks Earth Works to the side. It is how HE VIEWS the numbers. Residents, canal lot owner, or not, this is the same old pattern of this board. I, or WE, on the board have expertise in all things. We don't need expertise, we have it. REALLY???? Don't begin to tell me what I'm going to pay on another one of their haphazard, half baked, projects. I will pay NOTHING on anything that isn't properly studied, engineering plans developed, and overseen by a reputable source! I won't entertain "putting aside money' to fund a sloppy project after all the hell the 2009 board went through on a project that was well designed, documented, followed by experts, every step reviewed by our attorney, and a lawsuit brought not only against the board, but individual board members. I won't pay anything toward any canal project that differs from residents off the canals, until they tell me EXACTLY - word for word, what part of the governing documents allow them to do. McMillin has thrown his figures out, told me what to put aside, but hasn't bothered to tell me HOW, under what legal authority the board entertains doing that.
Once again, where was Water Amenities? Remember, when they had the dock project - both of them. They hired EXPERTS to design and oversee the work. They put the project out to bid. As a canal lot owner, I'm tired of being the step child of Wedgefield.
STAY TUNED. PART III, GARRISON SPEAKS
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
PART V: THE WPA MARCH 19 BOARD MEETING - NEW BUSINESS- THE CANAL PROPOSAL
I've listened to the tape of the March 19th WPA board meeting. I'm not going to transcribe every word of each report. I'm reporting what I heard to the best of my ability. Please listen to the tape yourself. NOTE: If you don't listen to any other part of the tape, this portion is important, it is an exhibit, a telling of much that is wrong with this board. If you listen for logic, solid foundation, principles, etc., you won't find it. Parts of the article will be transcribed and in quotes (blue print and underlined) to the best of my ability, other portions - not, my comments will be in red. P.S.: Please don't think that I fail to understand that this is a discussion/proposal. However, this board has had snippets of discussion in the past, gone under the clock of "closed meetings", and surfaced like they did with the "accounting function" and really made all the decisions, behind our backs.
McMillin starts this segment of the meeting with the spoil site. "I want to make a quick comment first. I do believe since the spoil site is WPA owned and we pay taxes on it and a maintenance crew is in place that we do have a responsibility to make a payment and not have to go out for a second bid every time. There is already verbiage in their contract that we just used. It went very well.... I don't see any reason to change that. I think that should included in their contract description. No new contract at this time." President Walton, says "alright, move on."
If you haven't been following this saga, what McMillin is talking about is the fact that your board has moved spoil site maintenance from under the guidance of the Water Amenities Committee to the Grounds Committee. It may be a committee of one, McMillin. He doesn't get any qualified expert to determine what needs to be done, provide a scope of work, and monitor the maintenance. Your board at some past point, determines that they have enough information to make those determinations. McMillin announced previously that he didn't want to secure bids for the maintenance. He was adding it to the contract of our landscaping crew. The contract does have a clause that allows "like work" to be added to it. Forget that your broad didn't use the clause when they hired an arborist for the road study, to determine root problems. This contractor will follow the direction of the board(????), does not have the equipment to get to the spoil site, so volunteers are transporting their crew and equipment to the site. A few questions: Does the insurance company know about this liability? Where is a study, a plan, and expert over site? Why did our president allow the move of marine property to land - grounds? Why would you add this kind of water/marine work to a landscaping, lawn mowing, crew? Why did your board allow no bids in this bizarre move of assets?
Now McMillin moves to the canals. "It has been three years since the canals.....nearly all the litigation has ran its course. We've had a cooling off period....Now we are starring at each other waiting for someone to bring up the canal issue again. My thoughts on this are my own, attempting a common sense approach. I will talk in general terms, not interested in particular dollar amount. However, I'm hoping my estimates prove to be reasonably close based on theory provided by Earth Works engineering firm." When did the cooling off happen? The counter suit is still in progress and the board is in process of various legal steps to collect on some canal lot owners. Did Earth Works put this theory in writing? Doubtful.
"To begin, let's discuss who should pay what portion of the bills. It's been estimated that the north, south, and connector canals comprise 40% of the canal system. You can argue all you want that the state owns the canals, don't hold your breath waiting for them to maintain them. That will fall to us to find workable long term answers to do this, whether they offer any monetary help, or not. My suggestions are a combination of other proposals and some comments I heard. If you recall Adam had a proposal for a separate regime and that...Little response and there were objections...no 100% participation, that one evidently going any where" What other proposals? If they exist, can we review them and when were they discussed? It wasn't at the board table. As to the regime survey, it was poorly constructed and planned. There wasn't a place for residents to sign them, no return date, just a yes or no, and they weren't mailed to all people at the same time. Technically, they could still come in, because canal owners can take how ever long they want to answer it. No one ever compiled the results and shared the comments. As to what he heard, it was probably in another of your board's closed meetings. Did the state give credibility to any of this? If they did, could we see it?
"My suggestion is a combination of other proposals and I advocate that the three main canals become the responsibility of the WPA and all finger canals be funded by the property owners. "
McMillin then goes on to discuss the fact that there are 79 canal lot owners due to some lot consolidation, etc. He feels all 79 canal lot owners should pay the same amount. "The cost of the main canal dredging, the spoil site, would be shard by all owners through the assessments. In other words, the canal lot owners would fund more than the 60%. It would be somewhere between the 60 and 70% range for the total cost of the dredging. Could be as much as 70 - 30. They would pay more than 60% of the dredging.
Let's talk about the administration of responsibilities and the funds. The board would still be expected to work in unison with the Water Amenities Committee and under Article V, section 4 of our covenants and by laws where it says that you can spend assessment monies for any purposes for the general benefit of the sub division, if canals are a sub division, then we as a board still have a responsibility to administer the assessment monies. The Water Amenities Committee should be....bulk of the work for the next dredging project. The Water Amenities Chairperson would act as the liaison for the board." Why, when he took the time to tell us what the governing documents said regarding general benefit and ALL of us paying for spoil site and main canals, didn't he tell us under what portion of the governing documents, he will charge the canal lot owners MORE? Let's get specific, if you are going to do it for one segment of the billing public. He has NOTHING , unless he speaks of INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT, which is in the governing documents, and was used in 2009 when the vote to dredge was taken. No canal owner should pay one dime more than the rest until he states what governing language allows the billing. He can't go there, because the litigation isn't over, and your board hasn't collected on all the canal lot owners, and some of the board members sitting at that board table are still involved in litigation, and were blatant advocates of the lawsuit against the 2009 board.
Where was the Water Amenities Committee in this? This was not billed as a proposal from Water Amenities? I guess if you move the MARINE spoil site to GROUNDS, ALLOW A LANDSCAPING COMPANY TO MAINTAIN THE SPOIL SITE WITHOUT EXPERT SUPERVISION, all blessed by our president and our board, you feel you can move any mountains you decide to. I believe the WPA owned 45% of the frontage on the canal related waterways when it was calculated in 2009. He thinks he can decide to have canal lot owners pay 60 - 70%????
STAY TUNED FOR PART II OF THIS REPORT.
McMillin starts this segment of the meeting with the spoil site. "I want to make a quick comment first. I do believe since the spoil site is WPA owned and we pay taxes on it and a maintenance crew is in place that we do have a responsibility to make a payment and not have to go out for a second bid every time. There is already verbiage in their contract that we just used. It went very well.... I don't see any reason to change that. I think that should included in their contract description. No new contract at this time." President Walton, says "alright, move on."
If you haven't been following this saga, what McMillin is talking about is the fact that your board has moved spoil site maintenance from under the guidance of the Water Amenities Committee to the Grounds Committee. It may be a committee of one, McMillin. He doesn't get any qualified expert to determine what needs to be done, provide a scope of work, and monitor the maintenance. Your board at some past point, determines that they have enough information to make those determinations. McMillin announced previously that he didn't want to secure bids for the maintenance. He was adding it to the contract of our landscaping crew. The contract does have a clause that allows "like work" to be added to it. Forget that your broad didn't use the clause when they hired an arborist for the road study, to determine root problems. This contractor will follow the direction of the board(????), does not have the equipment to get to the spoil site, so volunteers are transporting their crew and equipment to the site. A few questions: Does the insurance company know about this liability? Where is a study, a plan, and expert over site? Why did our president allow the move of marine property to land - grounds? Why would you add this kind of water/marine work to a landscaping, lawn mowing, crew? Why did your board allow no bids in this bizarre move of assets?
Now McMillin moves to the canals. "It has been three years since the canals.....nearly all the litigation has ran its course. We've had a cooling off period....Now we are starring at each other waiting for someone to bring up the canal issue again. My thoughts on this are my own, attempting a common sense approach. I will talk in general terms, not interested in particular dollar amount. However, I'm hoping my estimates prove to be reasonably close based on theory provided by Earth Works engineering firm." When did the cooling off happen? The counter suit is still in progress and the board is in process of various legal steps to collect on some canal lot owners. Did Earth Works put this theory in writing? Doubtful.
"To begin, let's discuss who should pay what portion of the bills. It's been estimated that the north, south, and connector canals comprise 40% of the canal system. You can argue all you want that the state owns the canals, don't hold your breath waiting for them to maintain them. That will fall to us to find workable long term answers to do this, whether they offer any monetary help, or not. My suggestions are a combination of other proposals and some comments I heard. If you recall Adam had a proposal for a separate regime and that...Little response and there were objections...no 100% participation, that one evidently going any where" What other proposals? If they exist, can we review them and when were they discussed? It wasn't at the board table. As to the regime survey, it was poorly constructed and planned. There wasn't a place for residents to sign them, no return date, just a yes or no, and they weren't mailed to all people at the same time. Technically, they could still come in, because canal owners can take how ever long they want to answer it. No one ever compiled the results and shared the comments. As to what he heard, it was probably in another of your board's closed meetings. Did the state give credibility to any of this? If they did, could we see it?
"My suggestion is a combination of other proposals and I advocate that the three main canals become the responsibility of the WPA and all finger canals be funded by the property owners. "
McMillin then goes on to discuss the fact that there are 79 canal lot owners due to some lot consolidation, etc. He feels all 79 canal lot owners should pay the same amount. "The cost of the main canal dredging, the spoil site, would be shard by all owners through the assessments. In other words, the canal lot owners would fund more than the 60%. It would be somewhere between the 60 and 70% range for the total cost of the dredging. Could be as much as 70 - 30. They would pay more than 60% of the dredging.
Let's talk about the administration of responsibilities and the funds. The board would still be expected to work in unison with the Water Amenities Committee and under Article V, section 4 of our covenants and by laws where it says that you can spend assessment monies for any purposes for the general benefit of the sub division, if canals are a sub division, then we as a board still have a responsibility to administer the assessment monies. The Water Amenities Committee should be....bulk of the work for the next dredging project. The Water Amenities Chairperson would act as the liaison for the board." Why, when he took the time to tell us what the governing documents said regarding general benefit and ALL of us paying for spoil site and main canals, didn't he tell us under what portion of the governing documents, he will charge the canal lot owners MORE? Let's get specific, if you are going to do it for one segment of the billing public. He has NOTHING , unless he speaks of INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT, which is in the governing documents, and was used in 2009 when the vote to dredge was taken. No canal owner should pay one dime more than the rest until he states what governing language allows the billing. He can't go there, because the litigation isn't over, and your board hasn't collected on all the canal lot owners, and some of the board members sitting at that board table are still involved in litigation, and were blatant advocates of the lawsuit against the 2009 board.
Where was the Water Amenities Committee in this? This was not billed as a proposal from Water Amenities? I guess if you move the MARINE spoil site to GROUNDS, ALLOW A LANDSCAPING COMPANY TO MAINTAIN THE SPOIL SITE WITHOUT EXPERT SUPERVISION, all blessed by our president and our board, you feel you can move any mountains you decide to. I believe the WPA owned 45% of the frontage on the canal related waterways when it was calculated in 2009. He thinks he can decide to have canal lot owners pay 60 - 70%????
STAY TUNED FOR PART II OF THIS REPORT.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
PART IV: THE MARCH 19 WPA BOARD MEETING - THE ACCOUNTING FUNCTION
I've listened to the tape of the March 19th WPA board meeting. I'm not going to transcribe every word of each report. I'm reporting what I heard to the best of my ability. Please listen to the tape yourself.
Treasurer, DeMarchi gives the report. He says he has updated the accounting function description to the policy manual, provided it to the board for review and comment, but received very little in a timely manner. He has spoken to one individual who is a trainer in Quick Books, so she could also do the accounting, and help train our staff person in any area she needs help in. There is a two year experience requirement and the individual must sign a confidentiality agreement. If anyone knows of anyone who would be interested in talking about the accounting function, they should contact DeMarchi. Some things will have to be defined, but it will be something like 4 hours a week. They will go over things, reconciling things, and making sure things are right, along with filing taxes. DeMarchi says that's the end of the report.
Mc Bride says he had given a response to the description. DeMarchi says it wasn't in a timely manner.
Mc Bride says he thought the board decided to use a firm to do our accounting. He goes on to say we need a CPA with the clerical backup of a firm to send out annual assessments, send out monthly penalty notices, and keep track of the $20 late fees as they are collected.
Garrison says he doesn't recall that the board agreed.
DeMarchi jumps in and says it was one person on the board.
Garrison says he doesn't agree that CPA needs to be added as a qualification. He goes on to say what DeMarchi has is fine.
DeMarchi says McBride provided his information just prior to the board meeting.
McBride says he is proud of his response.
DeMarchi tells him to "pat himself on the back".
Someone on the board says to settle down.
President Walton gives information that it was submitted last week, placed in the board members boxes for a response, prior to the meeting.
Garrison says this is an addition to the policy manual and this should be first reading.
COMMENTS:
For a minute we will go to the last statement, Garrison's statement. How can this be first reading? No one READ the job description to us. Additionally, when a change is being suggested as first reading, it is suppose to be posted on the website so residents can review and comment. Can anyone find it on the website?
Next, just stop for another minute and consider the fact that when McBride says he thought the board discussed having a CPA, that NONE of us were allowed to be present. YOUR BOARD HELD THESE DISCUSSIONS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS! Why? What is so confidential that you can't observe your board in discussions about who, how, what, when, and what a job description, would look like? We live with the ramifications of their "no good substantial reason for", closed meetings. How do they get away with it? You let them. Remember DeMarchi, McMillin, Cline, and McBride signed pledges to hold open meetings! The only one that is "held harmless" is McBride because he fights an up hill battle with this group. The rest have just lied. What are they afraid of? Why couldn't they have discussed this "accounting function" during an open session? Possibly, because they didn't want you to witness the glimpse you got of their bad behavior at this meeting! In general, you don't have to hide what you are proud of.
McBride's questions and comments are like someone crying out in the dark as far as this board is concerned. He doesn't have a chance to be heard. Remember 3 present and past treasurer's sit at the board table - McMillin, Cline, and now DeMarchi. We've had four treasurers in about 2 years. They all have changed reporting formats, changed who is performing the "accounting function", and kept the financial ball whirling and trilling, with their views of how to account for our money. McMillin removed the requirement for a CPA. This entire board frustrated, tied the hands of the management company, until they quit. . The management company had performed the accounting function for a short period of time. At the same time, your board instructed them to send assessment notifications with a due date of Jan. 31, then instructed them not to send late notices until March. They don't want the professional involvement of a CPA, who would demand good, standard accounting practices. They want to control.
We need the CONSISTENTCY and the COMPETENCY of a good CPA firm.
Treasurer, DeMarchi gives the report. He says he has updated the accounting function description to the policy manual, provided it to the board for review and comment, but received very little in a timely manner. He has spoken to one individual who is a trainer in Quick Books, so she could also do the accounting, and help train our staff person in any area she needs help in. There is a two year experience requirement and the individual must sign a confidentiality agreement. If anyone knows of anyone who would be interested in talking about the accounting function, they should contact DeMarchi. Some things will have to be defined, but it will be something like 4 hours a week. They will go over things, reconciling things, and making sure things are right, along with filing taxes. DeMarchi says that's the end of the report.
Mc Bride says he had given a response to the description. DeMarchi says it wasn't in a timely manner.
Mc Bride says he thought the board decided to use a firm to do our accounting. He goes on to say we need a CPA with the clerical backup of a firm to send out annual assessments, send out monthly penalty notices, and keep track of the $20 late fees as they are collected.
Garrison says he doesn't recall that the board agreed.
DeMarchi jumps in and says it was one person on the board.
Garrison says he doesn't agree that CPA needs to be added as a qualification. He goes on to say what DeMarchi has is fine.
DeMarchi says McBride provided his information just prior to the board meeting.
McBride says he is proud of his response.
DeMarchi tells him to "pat himself on the back".
Someone on the board says to settle down.
President Walton gives information that it was submitted last week, placed in the board members boxes for a response, prior to the meeting.
Garrison says this is an addition to the policy manual and this should be first reading.
COMMENTS:
For a minute we will go to the last statement, Garrison's statement. How can this be first reading? No one READ the job description to us. Additionally, when a change is being suggested as first reading, it is suppose to be posted on the website so residents can review and comment. Can anyone find it on the website?
Next, just stop for another minute and consider the fact that when McBride says he thought the board discussed having a CPA, that NONE of us were allowed to be present. YOUR BOARD HELD THESE DISCUSSIONS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS! Why? What is so confidential that you can't observe your board in discussions about who, how, what, when, and what a job description, would look like? We live with the ramifications of their "no good substantial reason for", closed meetings. How do they get away with it? You let them. Remember DeMarchi, McMillin, Cline, and McBride signed pledges to hold open meetings! The only one that is "held harmless" is McBride because he fights an up hill battle with this group. The rest have just lied. What are they afraid of? Why couldn't they have discussed this "accounting function" during an open session? Possibly, because they didn't want you to witness the glimpse you got of their bad behavior at this meeting! In general, you don't have to hide what you are proud of.
McBride's questions and comments are like someone crying out in the dark as far as this board is concerned. He doesn't have a chance to be heard. Remember 3 present and past treasurer's sit at the board table - McMillin, Cline, and now DeMarchi. We've had four treasurers in about 2 years. They all have changed reporting formats, changed who is performing the "accounting function", and kept the financial ball whirling and trilling, with their views of how to account for our money. McMillin removed the requirement for a CPA. This entire board frustrated, tied the hands of the management company, until they quit. . The management company had performed the accounting function for a short period of time. At the same time, your board instructed them to send assessment notifications with a due date of Jan. 31, then instructed them not to send late notices until March. They don't want the professional involvement of a CPA, who would demand good, standard accounting practices. They want to control.
We need the CONSISTENTCY and the COMPETENCY of a good CPA firm.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER ANNOUNCES 20,000 HITS
Brady is pleased to announce that The Wedgefield Examiner has reached 20,000 visits to the blog. Brady has been at my side since the day I tried to construct the blog. As of April 1st we have been up and running for 18 months! Stay tuned!
PART III: THE MARCH 19 WPA BOARD MEETING - THE TRESURER'S REPORT
I've listened to the tape of the March 19th WPA board meeting. I'm not going to transcribe every word of each report. I'm reporting what I heard to the best of my ability. Please listen to the tape yourself.
Treasurer, DeMarchi starts his report, as we've become accustom to for many months, telling us that some of the report is incorrect. Once again, we are in transition. (This time because of the management company having cancelled their contract with the WPA.) He goes on with the following information:
*2011 audit is complete. One item noted in the audit was corrected. The audit report included a statement that said there were no liens on WPA property. It was corrected because WPA property is collateral on the canal loan. Recommendations in the audit included the call for a reserve study and storage of WPA financial records from Quick Books be off site. DeMarchi noted that the reserve study is already in progress and that the auditor was unaware that the WPA has retained an off site service which downloads the information daily.
*Collections as of 3/14:
- There are 9 payment plans on past due accounts.
- 2 bankruptcies
- 3 notices out for service
- 1 account paid up in full
- 2 proceeding to arbitration
- 1 default judgment
- 3 WPA applied for default judgments
- 1 payment plan unacceptable to the board
- 14 owners are candidates for foreclosure next month. Letters will be sent.
- 66 owners unpaid for 2013
- 4 owners made partial payments
"DeMarchi states, "Search for an accountant has been started. I'm going to introduce later on, a job description for a new accountant ...for what we are looking for."
As DeMarchi is closing the report, Garrison says he wants everybody to be aware of the fact that the payable to First Federal is $91,000 and that means that in roughly six months, "it is all over", a little over a year ahead of schedule.
COMMENTS:
First, the board and DeMarchi should be credited for the close follow up on the old past due accounts and the complete reporting in this area of our finances. These steps have been a long time coming. Many past boards have failed to follow through in this area. Thanks board.
As for the 66 owners unpaid for 2013, that rests on the shoulders of this current board, particularly those that voted to change the policy manual, so there were no late penalties until after March 1st., with a payment due date of January 31. Would there still have been unpaid for 2013? Yes, but when you send mixed messages about your seriousness in collections, you condone this outcome.
I'm listening to the recording of the March meeting a little at a time. Right now I don't know how it all ends. At this point I am concerned when DeMarchi mentions that he has a job description for an accountant. Why? I fear they might be back to bringing everything in house again. I am concerned that we will end up with what we did in 2011 when McMillin changed the requirement for a CPA. They hired a person that didn't have the credentials in order to bring it back in house. What has plagued our reporting? The constant changing of how the reports look and what the current treasurer wants, which is often control. Remember, we have seen several treasurers over the last few years. Maybe DeMarchi misspoke and what we will hear later on the tape is that he has written an RFP for a real CPA to respond to. I'm not holding my breath, because I think this board who claims expertise in all things, is controlling and wants to bring the accounting in house in order to control.
Treasurer, DeMarchi starts his report, as we've become accustom to for many months, telling us that some of the report is incorrect. Once again, we are in transition. (This time because of the management company having cancelled their contract with the WPA.) He goes on with the following information:
*2011 audit is complete. One item noted in the audit was corrected. The audit report included a statement that said there were no liens on WPA property. It was corrected because WPA property is collateral on the canal loan. Recommendations in the audit included the call for a reserve study and storage of WPA financial records from Quick Books be off site. DeMarchi noted that the reserve study is already in progress and that the auditor was unaware that the WPA has retained an off site service which downloads the information daily.
*Collections as of 3/14:
- There are 9 payment plans on past due accounts.
- 2 bankruptcies
- 3 notices out for service
- 1 account paid up in full
- 2 proceeding to arbitration
- 1 default judgment
- 3 WPA applied for default judgments
- 1 payment plan unacceptable to the board
- 14 owners are candidates for foreclosure next month. Letters will be sent.
- 66 owners unpaid for 2013
- 4 owners made partial payments
"DeMarchi states, "Search for an accountant has been started. I'm going to introduce later on, a job description for a new accountant ...for what we are looking for."
As DeMarchi is closing the report, Garrison says he wants everybody to be aware of the fact that the payable to First Federal is $91,000 and that means that in roughly six months, "it is all over", a little over a year ahead of schedule.
COMMENTS:
First, the board and DeMarchi should be credited for the close follow up on the old past due accounts and the complete reporting in this area of our finances. These steps have been a long time coming. Many past boards have failed to follow through in this area. Thanks board.
As for the 66 owners unpaid for 2013, that rests on the shoulders of this current board, particularly those that voted to change the policy manual, so there were no late penalties until after March 1st., with a payment due date of January 31. Would there still have been unpaid for 2013? Yes, but when you send mixed messages about your seriousness in collections, you condone this outcome.
I'm listening to the recording of the March meeting a little at a time. Right now I don't know how it all ends. At this point I am concerned when DeMarchi mentions that he has a job description for an accountant. Why? I fear they might be back to bringing everything in house again. I am concerned that we will end up with what we did in 2011 when McMillin changed the requirement for a CPA. They hired a person that didn't have the credentials in order to bring it back in house. What has plagued our reporting? The constant changing of how the reports look and what the current treasurer wants, which is often control. Remember, we have seen several treasurers over the last few years. Maybe DeMarchi misspoke and what we will hear later on the tape is that he has written an RFP for a real CPA to respond to. I'm not holding my breath, because I think this board who claims expertise in all things, is controlling and wants to bring the accounting in house in order to control.
Monday, April 1, 2013
PART II: THE MARCH 19 WPA MEETING - THE SECRETARY'S REPORT
I've listened to the tape of the March 19th WPA board meeting. I'm not going to transcribe every word of each report. I'm reporting what I heard to the best of my ability. Please listen to the tape yourself.
Secretary, Cline included information in her report regarding the upcoming Easter event. She thanked a number of residents for assisting in the preparations. When asked, how much the event would cost she stated around $500. McBride asked her if she was going to make a motion to approve an expenditure of up to $500. She said no, that her budget line item had been approved when this year's budget was passed. McBride said that every board member had to seek the approval of the board on any expense over $200. I believe McBride asked again if she would make the motion and she stated no. In the end, DeMarchi made the motion to approve up to $500 for the Easter event. The motion passed.
COMMENTS:
Members, this is just another example of a long chain of events that indicated that many members on the board are willing to turn the other way, when it comes to policy and procedure. Up until the point that McBride brought the issue regarding approval to the table, no one else mentioned, or cautioned the board that approval was necessary. Even after McBride brought it up, no one jumped in and said "that's right". No one advised Cline that she should be taking the lead in seeking approval, or that McBride was correct. McBride, went on to explain that every committee chair has a budget that was approved within the total budget. I recall him giving an example of a committee chair having a budget of $15,000 and asking if the chair could just spend it. We all know they can't. Residents, this lack of interest, the empowering of some board members above the powers levied in our governing documents, should cause you concern. Many on this board are making up, or ignoring the governing documents, and allowing board members favored among the group to wield more power than they should have.
Secretary, Cline included information in her report regarding the upcoming Easter event. She thanked a number of residents for assisting in the preparations. When asked, how much the event would cost she stated around $500. McBride asked her if she was going to make a motion to approve an expenditure of up to $500. She said no, that her budget line item had been approved when this year's budget was passed. McBride said that every board member had to seek the approval of the board on any expense over $200. I believe McBride asked again if she would make the motion and she stated no. In the end, DeMarchi made the motion to approve up to $500 for the Easter event. The motion passed.
COMMENTS:
Members, this is just another example of a long chain of events that indicated that many members on the board are willing to turn the other way, when it comes to policy and procedure. Up until the point that McBride brought the issue regarding approval to the table, no one else mentioned, or cautioned the board that approval was necessary. Even after McBride brought it up, no one jumped in and said "that's right". No one advised Cline that she should be taking the lead in seeking approval, or that McBride was correct. McBride, went on to explain that every committee chair has a budget that was approved within the total budget. I recall him giving an example of a committee chair having a budget of $15,000 and asking if the chair could just spend it. We all know they can't. Residents, this lack of interest, the empowering of some board members above the powers levied in our governing documents, should cause you concern. Many on this board are making up, or ignoring the governing documents, and allowing board members favored among the group to wield more power than they should have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)