I recently visited the WPA office to review files. I reviewed 6 months of the correspondence file. I observed some interesting details. First, our correspondence file, really is NOT a real correspondence file, it is just an assembly of resident unanswered letters. A business or organization file usually contains all correspondence: letters received, answers to questions, announcements of meetings of the organization, inner agency communication, etc. The WPA file no longer (with rare exception) contains those items. It did at one time, I know because I've reviewed it for several years now. When did it change? For the most part, with this board. For instance, if a board meeting, other than the monthly meeting was called, the notice was filed along with responses to the notice. If a resident had a question that required an answer from a particular board member, that board member prepared a draft response and sent it for review and comment, and fellow board member comments or approvals were filed. I do understand that some items might be sensitive, contain financial or legal information about a resident, but that is rare, and even then there are ways to remove names, etc. and file it. Some items may have to be copied and placed in two files to provide a concrete flow of information in all areas.
I reviewed 26 letters from January to May 21st. NOT ONE WAS ANSWERED. Residents have written, yet each month our association president sits back, calls for a report from the community liaison, and THERE IS NO REPORT. Each month, no one on the board says, "WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?" That appears to be, just the way your president and board want it. There are some hints that residents are answered. For instance, on April 26th, a resident on Joanna Guillard Lane writes the drainage chair about water in their yard because of a vacant lot for sale that has been cleared and is extremely low. In that case they may have received an answer, but you and I don't know what it was, but we do know that the chair has sought and received approval of funds, to work on drainage on Joanna Guillard Lane and his road, saying everyone on the drainage committee for the last 6 or 7 years were wrong. What we don't know is who built that particular resident's home and what they were promised. In any case, it appears our drainage chair doesn't want to write a proper answer, send it, and have it reviewed by the board, and reported by the board community liaison. If the drainage chair is confident that they are correct, we'd all be able to read or hear what the resident was promised.
There is another instance on April 10th, where a resident has written two or three times, copying the Concerned Citizens. He wants some trees cut back. He goes on about canal dredging , over one million , "for dredging mud out of property, we don't own". He further states the board is not keeping up with the roadways and the "entire plantation is wearing down." Additionally he states, "Come on now, let's start using funds for the benefit of everyone and for appropriate purposes! Are not the roadways traveled by everyone?" He has written two times earlier. Some of his writings on this subject were written when the management company was in place. Remember that awful management company that is being blamed for so much now? Well, answering resident concerns, part of their contract, was usually held up by the board FOREVER. On Feb. 19th, the management company representative writes the following to the resident, "Last week I emailed the board your pictures as well as the email that states your concerns. I added my comments as well about the issue of safety to larger vehicles. I have not yet heard from them in regards to this issue. As soon as the board responds to my email I will forward this on to you." Your board didn't answer, they stifled the management company, and your president doesn't see to it that his community liaison does his job. No one on that board wants any of us to know too much. Could it be because they don't intend to treat us all the same?
On March 20, a resident writes our president and the legal chair. "Is it possible to quit claim the portion o the canals supposedly owned by the association, the rice fields and the spoil site to either the state or the canal lot owners?" We don't have a answer from the board. Why? At first I thought the question was a bit off the wall. This resident, a Concerned Citizen, is often at monthly meetings. They have possibly heard your legal chair discuss quit claim of other association property to canal lot owners. Hmmm, wouldn't you think legal would at least explain since they are in the process of giving away association property?
On February 27, a resident on Francis Parker writes of a neighbor and asks, "prevents the development of any unclean, unsightly, or unkept conditions of buildings or grounds on such lot which shall tend to substantially decrease the beauty of the neighborhood as a whole or the specific as a whole or the area'. They go on to say, "there have been numerous occasions of NOXIOUS OR OFFENSIVE ACTIVITY (the resident put this phrase in caps). I am writing this to place Wedgefield Plantation Association on notice and would ask that this be passed onto the appropriate parties." There is no response to this resident. Why would there be? Consider this, I haven't done a drive by lately, but one of the officers of our board, who lives in that area, has a lot, has allowed a blue trap to be placed on the lot, in the trees, that makes it look like an area where homeless people gather, live and sleep. This same board member sits on ARC with ARC chairman, our president! These same words could apply to old dock number one being dragged into our back yard - the canals.
COMMENTS - WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS? SERIOUS!
*Your board wants to keep you in the dark. There is a procedure in the policy manual for answering residents. Your board is constantly changing the policy manual while ignoring the steps required by our by-laws (See next item.). They don't provide a hard copy of the policy manual. Recently they have removed it from the WPA website. So you are left in the dark! You don't even know what they are changing. You can't read it anywhere. I had asked what the problem was? I was told on May 21st that it would be up on the website within a week. The time has passed. I checked today and it is not there. It could look like, keep the target moving, keep them dumb and in the dark. Remember, it appears they are expert at everything! One thing I'm sure of is that the policy manual doesn't say, "don't answer anyone, don't put anything in writing, and don't report that there were questions in the first place."
*Are all these changes to the policy manual important? Yes! It appears, they keep changing them to accommodate what they want to do in the moment, to shut each other up and deal for the board votes they want for their projects. THE CHANGES TO THE POLICY MANUAL ARE IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF OUR BY-LAWS!!!!!!! Look at the annual meeting minutes for 2011. YOU, as residents VOTED to approve a by-law change that basically says that when the board wants to change the policy manual they must read the changes at two meetings AND post the proposed changes on the WPA website for resident review and comment. THEY HAVE NEVER posted ONE!!!!! In some cases, they have NEVER read the complete change at a meeting. YOU can't read the RESIDENT APPROVED BY LAW CHANGE, because they have posted the by-laws but have not included the new one - SINCE NOVEMBER 2011. I wrote and asked how any of these MANY, MANY POLICY MANUAL CHANGES CAN HOLD WHEN THEY HAVEN'T FOLLOWED THE BY-LAW????!!!!! They didn't answer me, but when I went to the office I was told that the legal chair had to see if the by-law was registered. This legal chair was in place in early 2012 on. He reported at the May board meeting that the by-law was registered. What does that mean, when he doesn't tell us when, and how registrations trumps your vote?????? He doesn't tell us what he has been doing, except making sure there are NO WRITTEN LEGAL OPINIONS for you to review and read for yourself! Even after he said it was registered (??????, forget your VOTE, he didn't see that it was posted for you to read on the WPA website. I checked today for myself.
So....No answers to residents, change the policy manual to suit your individual board member agenda, don't get legal opinions in writing, ignore by-laws, and count on residents putting up with it and remaining SILENT! Many of you are doing just that.
Friday, May 31, 2013
YES, YOUR BOARD'S FAILURE TO ACT ON THEIR OWN VOTES, STANDS AS A REMINDER EVERY DAY THAT MESS SITS IN THE CANALS - YOUR BACKYARD.......LATER TODAY THE IMPLICATIONS OF FAILURE TO ANSWER RESIDENTS AND THE CORRESPONDENCE FILE
THIS IS WHAT THEY SAID WHEN THEY PASSED THE MOTION TO BUILD THE NEW DOCK. -----SEEMS WITH THIS BOARD THAT THEY WON'T STAND BEHIND THEIR OWN WORDS
I've taken the board members words in the discussion that follows, after the motion is made and seconded to replace the old #1 landing dock.
President Walton asks, "Do these three bids include removing the old one?" John Walton, Water Amenities Chair, "Not to take it off site. Just to PULL IT OUT." President Walton, "Yes, it will still be in our possession." Garrison asks about the cost to DISPOSE OF IT. Some of this part of the discussion becomes hard to hear and I listen with ear phones. If these guys are proud of what they are doing, they should ALL take the mike and speak loud and clear. You can hear John Walton say, "We could do it by ourselves." Garrison says, "DRAG IT UT AND CUT IT UP." DeMarchi, "I thought at the discussion last month the old dock had some serviceable life in it? Garrison, "Well yes and no. IF IT STILL HAS SOME SERVICEABLE LIFE IN IT THEN WHY REPLACE IT? I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT IN SOME BODY'S CANAL IN THE BACK YARD. If somebody wanted it....." DeMarchi, "IF IT WASN'T SERVICEABLE, WHY WOULD ANYBODY BE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO BUY IT? I can't make out the voice, but someone on the board says, "THE RIVER HAS BEAT IT TO PIECES." President Walton, "Some of the floaters re coming out of it." Garrison, "I have no problem with recognizing it needs to be replaced. I think replacing it is a good idea." Anderson asks questions about the time frame for completion. DeMarchi, DOES HE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PICK THAT DOCK UP AND PUT IT ON THE SHORE SO IT CAN BE DISSEMBLED?" John Walton, Water Amenities Chair, "SURE, SURE" HE'LL DO THAT AS PART OF HIS PRICE."
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
WILL THE BOARD'S FAILURE TO ACT HAVE RAMIFICATIONS FOR ALL OF US?
This weekend I worked in my yard. I love gardening and helping my flowers mature and bloom. I enjoy looking at my yard after I have done my work and the mowing team has been in and done theirs. I hate weeds amongst my flowers and have a constant struggle. As I worked, I looked over at the vacant lot next to me. I have great lot owners next to me. We've worked together to keep some growth next to the bulk head down. They have lot mowing provided through the WPA. This is not about them, but a questions I have for the board. The growth in the lot next to me is now knee high. What is worse is that some of the growth is weeds that have now gone to seed and are invading one of my largest flower beds. AGAIN, THIS IS ABOUT THE BOARD, and not about the great lot land owner next to me. I'd write the board, BUT they NEVER answer. In fact I've recently reviewed the correspondence file and they haven't ANSWERED anyone in the SIX months I reviewed. In past board meetings, they have attacked me, as writing too often. My review of the file indicated I had written to ask questions, twice in the last six months. I'll copy them with this article and ask them to place it in the correspondence file but hell will freeze over before I get an answer. My question will center around the Grounds Report, given during the May board meeting. I've provided a quote from a article I published earlier (in red).
"McMillin opened bids for the grounds contract. The grounds contract currently includes work on the spoil site and mowing of vacant lots with owners paying. First remember McMillin, who sits on the Water Amenities Committee, but chairs Grounds, dragged a Water Amenities asset into Grounds some time ago, as your board sat back and so did the committee. There has been discussion at the board table in the past that McMillin is not billing individual lot owners enough to cover the cost of the mowing. In the past, he has stood adamantly in behalf of the lot owners, unwilling to raise the cost to them, to sufficiently cover the expense. From the figures reported in the contract for the mowing last night, it roughly appears that we - YOU AND ME, are covering as much as 40 - 50% of the mowing.
At some points the cost of mowing for each lot owner came into question. A board member felt that the work at the spoil site should be separate. McMillin pouted, at times was adamant. The board let it slide much like the old dock in the canals, and held approval of the grounds contract for two months. Watch where this goes. Will pouting work and behind the scene deals be made that will make McMillin smile again? "
HERE'S THE QUESTIONS FOR YOU AND THE BOARD:
1) Did you exhaust all of the lot mowing opportunities provided in the 2012 grounds contract? I recall hearing it reported in an earlier meeting, that you had and in fact may have gone over the number.
2) If all of the mowings have been performed according to the old contract, and you've held approval of the new contract until August, how will you provide lot mowings during the prime mowing season to the lot owners?
3) Are you willing to force those of us who live next to the currently unmoved lots, to be forced to live with a condition that will only get worse and more unsightly? If so, when did you plan on advising both those of us who live next to these lots, and the lot owners?
4) Is it true that you have begun to invoice and collect for mowing services to lot owners for this year?
5) It seemed to be acknowledged at the board table, that you as a board have known for quite some time that non lot owners, through our assessments, are partially paying at a very high percent of each mowing, for PRIVATE MEMBER LOT MOWINGS. How can you as a governing entity KNOWINGLY allow this to take place, delay action, and further penalize us?
RESIDENTS: Attend board meetings. Go to the WPA website and read this board's sanitized minutes. If you miss a meeting, go to the Wedgefield Times and listen to the tape, it is far better, than reading those minutes. WRITE THE BOARD AND STATE YOUR CONCERNS. THEY WON'T ANSWER YOU, BUT THEY SHOULD BE PUT ON NOTICE THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM. IF ANY OF THEM ARE EVER SUED, THEY CAN'T SAY THEY WEREN'T AWARE.
"McMillin opened bids for the grounds contract. The grounds contract currently includes work on the spoil site and mowing of vacant lots with owners paying. First remember McMillin, who sits on the Water Amenities Committee, but chairs Grounds, dragged a Water Amenities asset into Grounds some time ago, as your board sat back and so did the committee. There has been discussion at the board table in the past that McMillin is not billing individual lot owners enough to cover the cost of the mowing. In the past, he has stood adamantly in behalf of the lot owners, unwilling to raise the cost to them, to sufficiently cover the expense. From the figures reported in the contract for the mowing last night, it roughly appears that we - YOU AND ME, are covering as much as 40 - 50% of the mowing.
At some points the cost of mowing for each lot owner came into question. A board member felt that the work at the spoil site should be separate. McMillin pouted, at times was adamant. The board let it slide much like the old dock in the canals, and held approval of the grounds contract for two months. Watch where this goes. Will pouting work and behind the scene deals be made that will make McMillin smile again? "
HERE'S THE QUESTIONS FOR YOU AND THE BOARD:
1) Did you exhaust all of the lot mowing opportunities provided in the 2012 grounds contract? I recall hearing it reported in an earlier meeting, that you had and in fact may have gone over the number.
2) If all of the mowings have been performed according to the old contract, and you've held approval of the new contract until August, how will you provide lot mowings during the prime mowing season to the lot owners?
3) Are you willing to force those of us who live next to the currently unmoved lots, to be forced to live with a condition that will only get worse and more unsightly? If so, when did you plan on advising both those of us who live next to these lots, and the lot owners?
4) Is it true that you have begun to invoice and collect for mowing services to lot owners for this year?
5) It seemed to be acknowledged at the board table, that you as a board have known for quite some time that non lot owners, through our assessments, are partially paying at a very high percent of each mowing, for PRIVATE MEMBER LOT MOWINGS. How can you as a governing entity KNOWINGLY allow this to take place, delay action, and further penalize us?
RESIDENTS: Attend board meetings. Go to the WPA website and read this board's sanitized minutes. If you miss a meeting, go to the Wedgefield Times and listen to the tape, it is far better, than reading those minutes. WRITE THE BOARD AND STATE YOUR CONCERNS. THEY WON'T ANSWER YOU, BUT THEY SHOULD BE PUT ON NOTICE THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM. IF ANY OF THEM ARE EVER SUED, THEY CAN'T SAY THEY WEREN'T AWARE.
Monday, May 27, 2013
HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY FROM YOUR BOARD - DRIVE BY AND GIVE THE OLD NUMBER ONE DOCK A SALUTE!
Yes, the dock that was suppose to only be a memory by now is still a float. Was your board dishonest about it having no useful life? Did they just fail to stand behind their decisions? Is the fact that it is in the canals where "some" on the board wanted it in the first place, just more of their behind the scenes deals? They don't appear to care, because they did nothing about it at the May board meeting. Listen to the tape. One of the board members claimed after they listed it for sale that there were offers of $2,000 - $4,000. If so, why didn't they take it? Yet, those who had it towed in there, don't know how they will get it back out!!!!! The real question is the integrity of this board.
Sunday, May 26, 2013
EMAIL FROM A BOARD MEMBER TO THE WPA PRESIDENT MAY GIVE INSIGHT TO PROBLEMS OF THE BOARD THAT TAKES THEIR INDIVDUAL POWER TO FAR AND POSSIBLE NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS TO OUR NEW "ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT
TALES FROM THE CORRESPONDENCE FILE:
The email subject was "Builder Damage", sent to ARC to President Walton, dated 4/15, from a board member, who is a member of the ARC committee. It is not sent to the entire board, or the complete membership of the ARC. It is not a lengthy email and centers around a truck that has driven across the board member's front yard and left deep ruts and tire tracks. The board member notes that he had placed a call to the offending company. This is the portion that should send red flags, (quoted exactly as written) "I a wait a call from Mr. Blanton, otherwise, I will have the lawn repaired and have the association deduct it from the owner deposit."
COMMENTS:
As I was reviewing the correspondence file, this particular email caused me to stop and think about the ramifications of what I had just read. Questions begin to develop. This is a resident problem - damage to property. If it were you or me, we would have to handle it by contacting the vendor (builder - not mine or his) and work out restoration of property. It happened on private land. Questions and comments follow:
1) Why would a resident involve the board at all, unless they witnessed the destruction of WPA property? Remember, to serve on the board you are required to own property and have kept your assessments current. So, all board members are residents, but the line between personal property issues and of individual board member responsibilities of management, should not be crossed, or it is conflict of interest and possible mismanagement. Serving on the board should not entitle you to use the power of the board seat to settle your personal property problems.
2) Why would a board member write the president only, not the whole board or the entire ARC Committee, and pre-determine that because the association holds the builder's deposit, that any board member can receive a portion of the deposit for themselves? The ARC collects refundable and non refundable deposits on new builds to protect ASSOCIATION property. I never saw a resident receive builder deposit funds to correct their individual property destruction, when I sat on the board. I contacted a few more board members who had served longer terms, and they told me that they hadn't seen it either, because the deposits are to protect WPA property.
I'm not telling you that the board member has received funds from the ARC deposit to correct their private property issue. We don't know. We do know that as ARC chair, President Walton gave a full report at the May meeting, and this was not discussed or mentioned. Wouldn't you think the request/issue would have been discussed by the full board? It should have been. All board members would have benefited by a discussion and the residents would have also.
I'm not surprised at anything. This issue speaks to the climate of this board. They let things ride, frequently do not share with the entire board, or YOU. This is a question of ethics, finance, and management. We are left as we always are, decisions made behind closed doors, lack for months of answers to residents - in writing documenting EXACTLY what your board had to say about an issue, and your board members running committees and handling responsibilities like their own INDIVIDUAL kingdoms. They lock each other out of their information kingdom, and then get many of the others to vote their way on limited knowledge. For instance, one of these board members told me that he was being denied information on the spoil site and previous canal dredging. One of the board members too involved in holding that information has said the first should stay out of HIS business. Do you know a board member asked to sit in on a conference call with the reserve study vendor and was denied by two other board members? Didn't you hear board members deny another's request at the May board meeting, to review the draft of the reserve study? Why???? Because this board is composed of territorial individuals who won't share to protect their individual turf and pet projects.
The problems exhibited here take us directly to the "accounting department" and lessons we have failed to learn from a ridiculous, often mismanaged past, because your board has brought complete management of our finances in house - AGAIN. We are back to checks being written on a the whim, of individual board members, with out the guidance, requirements, and supervision of a professional accountant. Think about it, about when we have tried this before. Prior to 2009 when a CPA was hired and you had to write a request, provide signature of responsible board member, terms of contract if applicable, and proper documentation, and then the CPA wrote the check for signature by two board members.
*Prior to that time, residents were suddenly told an office would be built - initially with a mortgage, and then your board took the funds out of reserves, failed to take any kind of public vote, and checks were written to an individual, rather than a corporation.
*After a board fired the accountant, brought the finances in house to be managed by a contract bookkeeper and the treasurer, the treasurer wrote a road contract that didn't include a total amount of contract, and gave the fail to serve contractor a 40 - 50% advance. The treasurer later said he did it because if he hadn't done it that way, there wouldn't have been a contract at all, and two of the other board officers had threatened to write the check without him.
*A board member announced during the 2011 annual meeting that the 2010 audit had revealed that during the last half of 2010 that there were a lot of reimbursements without receipts. Once again accounting was in house.
*We are back to in house accounting and two bookkeepers and the finance chair - "the accounting department", and the finance chair wrote this email.
The email subject was "Builder Damage", sent to ARC to President Walton, dated 4/15, from a board member, who is a member of the ARC committee. It is not sent to the entire board, or the complete membership of the ARC. It is not a lengthy email and centers around a truck that has driven across the board member's front yard and left deep ruts and tire tracks. The board member notes that he had placed a call to the offending company. This is the portion that should send red flags, (quoted exactly as written) "I a wait a call from Mr. Blanton, otherwise, I will have the lawn repaired and have the association deduct it from the owner deposit."
COMMENTS:
As I was reviewing the correspondence file, this particular email caused me to stop and think about the ramifications of what I had just read. Questions begin to develop. This is a resident problem - damage to property. If it were you or me, we would have to handle it by contacting the vendor (builder - not mine or his) and work out restoration of property. It happened on private land. Questions and comments follow:
1) Why would a resident involve the board at all, unless they witnessed the destruction of WPA property? Remember, to serve on the board you are required to own property and have kept your assessments current. So, all board members are residents, but the line between personal property issues and of individual board member responsibilities of management, should not be crossed, or it is conflict of interest and possible mismanagement. Serving on the board should not entitle you to use the power of the board seat to settle your personal property problems.
2) Why would a board member write the president only, not the whole board or the entire ARC Committee, and pre-determine that because the association holds the builder's deposit, that any board member can receive a portion of the deposit for themselves? The ARC collects refundable and non refundable deposits on new builds to protect ASSOCIATION property. I never saw a resident receive builder deposit funds to correct their individual property destruction, when I sat on the board. I contacted a few more board members who had served longer terms, and they told me that they hadn't seen it either, because the deposits are to protect WPA property.
I'm not telling you that the board member has received funds from the ARC deposit to correct their private property issue. We don't know. We do know that as ARC chair, President Walton gave a full report at the May meeting, and this was not discussed or mentioned. Wouldn't you think the request/issue would have been discussed by the full board? It should have been. All board members would have benefited by a discussion and the residents would have also.
I'm not surprised at anything. This issue speaks to the climate of this board. They let things ride, frequently do not share with the entire board, or YOU. This is a question of ethics, finance, and management. We are left as we always are, decisions made behind closed doors, lack for months of answers to residents - in writing documenting EXACTLY what your board had to say about an issue, and your board members running committees and handling responsibilities like their own INDIVIDUAL kingdoms. They lock each other out of their information kingdom, and then get many of the others to vote their way on limited knowledge. For instance, one of these board members told me that he was being denied information on the spoil site and previous canal dredging. One of the board members too involved in holding that information has said the first should stay out of HIS business. Do you know a board member asked to sit in on a conference call with the reserve study vendor and was denied by two other board members? Didn't you hear board members deny another's request at the May board meeting, to review the draft of the reserve study? Why???? Because this board is composed of territorial individuals who won't share to protect their individual turf and pet projects.
The problems exhibited here take us directly to the "accounting department" and lessons we have failed to learn from a ridiculous, often mismanaged past, because your board has brought complete management of our finances in house - AGAIN. We are back to checks being written on a the whim, of individual board members, with out the guidance, requirements, and supervision of a professional accountant. Think about it, about when we have tried this before. Prior to 2009 when a CPA was hired and you had to write a request, provide signature of responsible board member, terms of contract if applicable, and proper documentation, and then the CPA wrote the check for signature by two board members.
*Prior to that time, residents were suddenly told an office would be built - initially with a mortgage, and then your board took the funds out of reserves, failed to take any kind of public vote, and checks were written to an individual, rather than a corporation.
*After a board fired the accountant, brought the finances in house to be managed by a contract bookkeeper and the treasurer, the treasurer wrote a road contract that didn't include a total amount of contract, and gave the fail to serve contractor a 40 - 50% advance. The treasurer later said he did it because if he hadn't done it that way, there wouldn't have been a contract at all, and two of the other board officers had threatened to write the check without him.
*A board member announced during the 2011 annual meeting that the 2010 audit had revealed that during the last half of 2010 that there were a lot of reimbursements without receipts. Once again accounting was in house.
*We are back to in house accounting and two bookkeepers and the finance chair - "the accounting department", and the finance chair wrote this email.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
THE WPA ACCOUNTANT JOB DESCRIPTION
I visited the office on the May 22. One of the items that I wanted to review was the Accountant Job Description. I did not request a COPY when I wrote. I try never to put our staff Kathy in the middle of things, so I hand copied it word for word. I've typed it for you.
ACCOUNTANT JOB DESCRIPTION
The accountant performs a variety of general accounting support tasks in an accounting department including:
*Verifying the accuracy of invoices and other accounting documents or records.
*Up date and maintain accounting journals, ledgers and other records detailing financial business transactions (e.g.), disbursements, expense vouchers, receipts, accounts payable.
*Enters data into computer system using deferred computer programs
*Compile data and prepare a variety of reports with supporting reports (e.g.), P & L income statement, cash disbursements, aging reports, etc.
*Reconciles records with internal transactions and management, or external vendors or customers.
*Recommends actions to resolve discrepancies and investigating questionable data.
Qualifications:
*Competency in Microsoft applications including Word, Excel and Outlook
*Organizational, verbal and written communication skills a must
*Attention to detail and ability to multi-task is an asset
*Requires 2 years experience
*Must sign a "Confidentiality Agreement" regarding financial and personal information relative to the association.
COMMENTS:
First, take away the paid staff person and the new contractor. The following comments are "in general", under sound business practice, in dealing with the financial resources, collected from approximately 577 individual property owners, to be managed by a board in benefit of the place we live, fairly, and with sound judgment. This is not individual home finance or a little "mom and pop" private enterprise. The comments are not directed at the staff or contractor. This is a situation created by our treasurer and board, and not about individual staff or service provider.
Where are the real qualifications: the education requirements, professional designations such as CPA, accounting degree, or as may be the case - bookkeeping. They can't be found anywhere. This description could have been written by President Clinton, known for dissecting words like the, and, an, of, etc. If I needed an accountant and I asked you who your accountant was, I'm sure it would be a CPA. The board spent some time at the May board meeting going around the merry go round of the word accountant, when asked if the new contractor was our accountant. I believe we may have been left with two bookkeepers, one reviewing the other's work, managed by our board treasurer - the accounting department???? Does the treasurer have an accounting degree? I don't believe so. I don't believe anyone on the board is a CPA. At least call it what it is, have the guts to publish it for review and comment, as required by our newest by-law.
Often, if an employer has an individual they would like to fill a position, whether the individual is currently employed in the company, or from the outside, they will write the specifications to meet the skills, ability, and education of the person they wish to hire. Is that the case here? This move often, is not in the best interests of the organization, but tailored to meet the agenda of the interviewer, the supervisor.
We were advised by the board at the May meeting that the new person is a contractor. Was this "contractor job" put out to bid? There were other contractor jobs put out to bid and the bids were opened at the May meeting. Why not this, unless the description was written to match the skills of the candidate someone on your board had it mind?
All the requirements have been reduced. During the May meeting, our treasurer made a motion for the WPA to pay up to $400 per year to bond our employee and new contractor, at $50,000 each. A few years ago when McMillin changed the wording - dumbed down the CPA to really - bookkeeping, he also reduced bonding from $200,000 to $100,000, because that was the level of bonding "his favored candidate" could provide. McMillin stated during the May meeting, that his person had to pay their own bonding. This is a big downward slide and you are going to pay for reduced credibility and security. In the end, McMillin stated that the new contractor, "worked cheap". RUMOR IS the contractor will work for approximately $50 a month. You get what you pay for and we deserve first class management of our assessment dollars.
If your treasurer and board were proud of what they were doing they would have handled all of these decisions, discussed openly - not in closed meetings, followed the newest by-law and published this watered down version of a job description, contracted for services properly, and told us EXACTLY what it was going to cost. The board has taken us backwards, because you allow it.
P.S. What experience? Where? How long? HOA experience? Was it just the experience that will fit what this treasurer and board want to do?
COMMENTS:
First, take away the paid staff person and the new contractor. The following comments are "in general", under sound business practice, in dealing with the financial resources, collected from approximately 577 individual property owners, to be managed by a board in benefit of the place we live, fairly, and with sound judgment. This is not individual home finance or a little "mom and pop" private enterprise. The comments are not directed at the staff or contractor. This is a situation created by our treasurer and board, and not about individual staff or service provider.
Where are the real qualifications: the education requirements, professional designations such as CPA, accounting degree, or as may be the case - bookkeeping. They can't be found anywhere. This description could have been written by President Clinton, known for dissecting words like the, and, an, of, etc. If I needed an accountant and I asked you who your accountant was, I'm sure it would be a CPA. The board spent some time at the May board meeting going around the merry go round of the word accountant, when asked if the new contractor was our accountant. I believe we may have been left with two bookkeepers, one reviewing the other's work, managed by our board treasurer - the accounting department???? Does the treasurer have an accounting degree? I don't believe so. I don't believe anyone on the board is a CPA. At least call it what it is, have the guts to publish it for review and comment, as required by our newest by-law.
Often, if an employer has an individual they would like to fill a position, whether the individual is currently employed in the company, or from the outside, they will write the specifications to meet the skills, ability, and education of the person they wish to hire. Is that the case here? This move often, is not in the best interests of the organization, but tailored to meet the agenda of the interviewer, the supervisor.
We were advised by the board at the May meeting that the new person is a contractor. Was this "contractor job" put out to bid? There were other contractor jobs put out to bid and the bids were opened at the May meeting. Why not this, unless the description was written to match the skills of the candidate someone on your board had it mind?
All the requirements have been reduced. During the May meeting, our treasurer made a motion for the WPA to pay up to $400 per year to bond our employee and new contractor, at $50,000 each. A few years ago when McMillin changed the wording - dumbed down the CPA to really - bookkeeping, he also reduced bonding from $200,000 to $100,000, because that was the level of bonding "his favored candidate" could provide. McMillin stated during the May meeting, that his person had to pay their own bonding. This is a big downward slide and you are going to pay for reduced credibility and security. In the end, McMillin stated that the new contractor, "worked cheap". RUMOR IS the contractor will work for approximately $50 a month. You get what you pay for and we deserve first class management of our assessment dollars.
If your treasurer and board were proud of what they were doing they would have handled all of these decisions, discussed openly - not in closed meetings, followed the newest by-law and published this watered down version of a job description, contracted for services properly, and told us EXACTLY what it was going to cost. The board has taken us backwards, because you allow it.
P.S. What experience? Where? How long? HOA experience? Was it just the experience that will fit what this treasurer and board want to do?
Friday, May 24, 2013
LATER TODAY: THE ACCOUNTING JOB DESCRIPTION. YOU'LL HAVE TO READ IT HERE. YOUR BOARD FAILED TO READ THE COMPLETE DOCUMENT AT THE BOARD TABLE OR POST IT FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ON THE WPA WEBSITE, AS REQUIRED BY A 2011 BY-LAW THAT YOU VOTED INTO OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS. WHY? MAYBE THEY ARE ABOVE IT ALL, DON'T CARE, OR JUST MAYBE THEY ARE ASHAMED OF THIS DUMBED DOWN DOCUMENT, BUT LET IT SLIDE IN THE CLOSED MEETINGS AND DEALS THEY CUT IN BEHALF OF EACH OTHERS PROJECTS.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
A QUICK SNAP SHOT OF THE MAY WPA BOARD MEETING - COVER UPS, POUTS, AND DECLARATIONS
The May WPA board meeting started promptly at 7:00PM. We left at 8:45PM for a scheduled phone call at our home, and the board hadn't gotten all the way through committee reports. The reports will be transcribed over the next several days. All nine board members were at the table.
COVER -UPS:
Old landing dock number one continues to reside in the canals and will for at least a month. The Water Amenities Report glowed with the delight in the completion of the replacement dock project. I had been to the office earlier in the day to review the correspondence file. This is what DeMarchi wrote to the Board on May 11: "Yesterday I went to the marina to see the new dock. WHAT A SHOCK!!!! (presented as he wrote it) Hole cut in wrong place, piling collars not around pilings. I hope we did not pay for this piece of junk yet. It must be fixed before payment is made. Regarding the old dock, the board was told it would be disposed of and yet it sits in the canal and has to be brought to he boards attention by a resident accusing the board of lying. Was the old dock sold to a canal lot owner? How did it turn up at its current location?" It appears this group is so focused on each of their individual projects that they will shut up in order to get what they want. The invoice for the dock was presented for payment. It should be noted that the contractor who was suppose to pull the dock out to be dissembled, towed it into the canals at the direction of some on the Water Amenities Committee. (Full report later.)
As reported earlier, Garrison was to check to see if the newest by-law had been registered. Last night he reported it had. He didn't report when, or the implications of the board not following it in making all of the policies manual changes, without following it. Your board was aware of the by-law because they went to all the staging of half hazard reading(????) 2 times on each change. They NEVER provided the proposed changes on the WPA website for resident review and comment. (Full report to follow.)
POUTS:
McMillin opened bids for the grounds contract. More to follow with transcriptions. The grounds contract currently includes work on the spoil site and mowing of vacant lots with owners paying. First remember McMillin, who sits on the Water Amenities Committee, but chairs Grounds, dragged a Water Amenities asset into Grounds some time ago, as your board sat back and so did the committee. There has been discussion at the board table in the past that McMillin is not billing individual lot owners enough to cover the cost of the mowing. In the past, he has stood adamantly in behalf of the lot owners, unwilling to raise the cost to them, to sufficiently cover the expense. From the figures reported in the contract for the mowing last night, it roughly appears that we - YOU AND ME, are covering as much as 40 - 50% of the mowing.
At some points the cost of mowing for each lot owner came into question. A board member felt that the work at the spoil site should be separate. McMillin pouted, at times was adamant. The board let it slide much like the old dock in the canals, and held approval of the grounds contract for two months. Watch where this goes. Will pouting work and behind the scene deals be made that will make McMillin smile again? Full report later.
DECLARATIONS:
DeMarchi has completed the first stage of the project and contract reported on earlier DeMarchi declares that "five or six drainage committees have known since 2007 the issues (must be around the area he lives and built homes) and he will fix it. He will be the first one to fix it." Your board ignores McBride as he asks, "We're saying grading of lots is our responsibility? Will he ever have to explain, why this PARTICULAR area and not the others brought to his attention at the board table? More to follow.
IN GENERAL:
First, "Code of Ethics" President Walton pretty much sat by. Anything that should have been handled to completion laid on the table, was moved to later, are more deals in process? Like the lead in to the Wedgefield soap opera, - Will McMillin get to keep the spoil site under grounds against all reasonable business or board line structure? Will McMillin continue to be able to provide unbelievable deals to lot owners, as you help pay for their mowing? Will the Water Amenities Committee sigh and say, "We did it, we placed our old unrepairable dock in the canals, contrary to board approval, listed the poor wreck for sale, and the board barely slapped our hands." Will DeMarchi continue to ignore all the problems in other areas, and use our funds to fix his favorite land charity? Will you take it upon yourself to call the water regulatory agencies and ask them to come in and look at the size of this huge dock, placed in one of our smallest canals? Will you ask them to look at whether it meets environment requirements? There were questions at the board table but your board ignored them. Will Garrison ever have to explain why he sat back and allowed the board to make all those policy manual changes without following the "letter of the law - a by-law that you voted to put in place"? Will DeMarchi really get to continue calling a person who is a bookkeeper our accountant and pay for their bonding, because as McMillin says, "they work cheap", even though he brought up the fact that a previous contractor in this role had to pay for their own? We'll see as the Wedgefield board churns.
COVER -UPS:
Old landing dock number one continues to reside in the canals and will for at least a month. The Water Amenities Report glowed with the delight in the completion of the replacement dock project. I had been to the office earlier in the day to review the correspondence file. This is what DeMarchi wrote to the Board on May 11: "Yesterday I went to the marina to see the new dock. WHAT A SHOCK!!!! (presented as he wrote it) Hole cut in wrong place, piling collars not around pilings. I hope we did not pay for this piece of junk yet. It must be fixed before payment is made. Regarding the old dock, the board was told it would be disposed of and yet it sits in the canal and has to be brought to he boards attention by a resident accusing the board of lying. Was the old dock sold to a canal lot owner? How did it turn up at its current location?" It appears this group is so focused on each of their individual projects that they will shut up in order to get what they want. The invoice for the dock was presented for payment. It should be noted that the contractor who was suppose to pull the dock out to be dissembled, towed it into the canals at the direction of some on the Water Amenities Committee. (Full report later.)
As reported earlier, Garrison was to check to see if the newest by-law had been registered. Last night he reported it had. He didn't report when, or the implications of the board not following it in making all of the policies manual changes, without following it. Your board was aware of the by-law because they went to all the staging of half hazard reading(????) 2 times on each change. They NEVER provided the proposed changes on the WPA website for resident review and comment. (Full report to follow.)
POUTS:
McMillin opened bids for the grounds contract. More to follow with transcriptions. The grounds contract currently includes work on the spoil site and mowing of vacant lots with owners paying. First remember McMillin, who sits on the Water Amenities Committee, but chairs Grounds, dragged a Water Amenities asset into Grounds some time ago, as your board sat back and so did the committee. There has been discussion at the board table in the past that McMillin is not billing individual lot owners enough to cover the cost of the mowing. In the past, he has stood adamantly in behalf of the lot owners, unwilling to raise the cost to them, to sufficiently cover the expense. From the figures reported in the contract for the mowing last night, it roughly appears that we - YOU AND ME, are covering as much as 40 - 50% of the mowing.
At some points the cost of mowing for each lot owner came into question. A board member felt that the work at the spoil site should be separate. McMillin pouted, at times was adamant. The board let it slide much like the old dock in the canals, and held approval of the grounds contract for two months. Watch where this goes. Will pouting work and behind the scene deals be made that will make McMillin smile again? Full report later.
DECLARATIONS:
DeMarchi has completed the first stage of the project and contract reported on earlier DeMarchi declares that "five or six drainage committees have known since 2007 the issues (must be around the area he lives and built homes) and he will fix it. He will be the first one to fix it." Your board ignores McBride as he asks, "We're saying grading of lots is our responsibility? Will he ever have to explain, why this PARTICULAR area and not the others brought to his attention at the board table? More to follow.
IN GENERAL:
First, "Code of Ethics" President Walton pretty much sat by. Anything that should have been handled to completion laid on the table, was moved to later, are more deals in process? Like the lead in to the Wedgefield soap opera, - Will McMillin get to keep the spoil site under grounds against all reasonable business or board line structure? Will McMillin continue to be able to provide unbelievable deals to lot owners, as you help pay for their mowing? Will the Water Amenities Committee sigh and say, "We did it, we placed our old unrepairable dock in the canals, contrary to board approval, listed the poor wreck for sale, and the board barely slapped our hands." Will DeMarchi continue to ignore all the problems in other areas, and use our funds to fix his favorite land charity? Will you take it upon yourself to call the water regulatory agencies and ask them to come in and look at the size of this huge dock, placed in one of our smallest canals? Will you ask them to look at whether it meets environment requirements? There were questions at the board table but your board ignored them. Will Garrison ever have to explain why he sat back and allowed the board to make all those policy manual changes without following the "letter of the law - a by-law that you voted to put in place"? Will DeMarchi really get to continue calling a person who is a bookkeeper our accountant and pay for their bonding, because as McMillin says, "they work cheap", even though he brought up the fact that a previous contractor in this role had to pay for their own? We'll see as the Wedgefield board churns.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
WILL YOU ATTEND TONIGHT'S WPA MEETING? DON'T MISS OUT, THERE MAY BE A LEGAL SONG AND DANCE
This article is going to have to be brief and to the point. Will there be a Legal Committee song and dance? Right now I'm humming "Anticipation". This is my guess based on a visit to the office today to review records. Your board has made many, many policy manual changes. I contend that they made the changes, violating the newest by-law. This by-law change was passed by THE RESIDENTS at the 2011 annual meeting. YOUR BOARD HAS BEEN IGNORING IT THROUGH ALL THESE BY-LAW CHANGES!
At the 2011 annual meeting a by-law was passed by the residents that basically said that if the board was going to make a change to the policy manual that there was to be two READINGS during two board meetings, and the change was to be published on the WPA website so residents would have an opportunity to comment. I have searched the website several times for the published changed job description and it isn't there. This has been the case with every one of the changes your board has made.
*If you'd like to read the by-law, you can't. The by-laws are on the website but this one isn't INCLUDED!
Leaving out a by-law that you and I approved shouldn't happen but, I gave the board a chance and asked to read their hard copy of the by-laws. IT ISN'T IN THERE. I was told Garrison, Legal Chair, is checking with the attorney to see if it was registered?????? Wasn't he the LEGAL CHAIR DURING THE TIME YOU AND I VOTED? DOES OUR VOTE COUNT FOR ANYTHING?
Here's the problem, I believe that your board has to rescind policy manual change they have made since the annual meeting of 2011 and start again. THEY HAVE NEVER PUT THE PROPOSED CHANGES ON THE WEBSITE FOR RESIDENT REVIEW AND COMMENT. In the case of one of the most recent changes - the accounting function job description, DeMarchi never read it during the meeting, didn't post it for YOUR review and comment, and your board passed it. I'm guessing your board MAY sing, "WE DIDN'T HAVE TO FOLLOW IT BECAUSE IT WASN'T REGISTERED. IF THEY DO, WE BETTER SING, "WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE"!
IMPORTANT: The by-law that your board has ignored was put forward after a group of residents became upset because in one board meeting, McMillin made a motion to dumb down the requirements of the policy manual regarding the qualifications of the person who did our "accounting function". At the time the policy manual required an ACCOUNTANT. He had it removed so he could bring accounting in house and hire the candidate of his choice. THE RESIDENTS WANTED INPUT TO THE PROPOSED POLICY MANUAL CHANGES! I've seen the change DeMarchi wants to make and he dumbed it down further (To be provided in another article.). He does refer to accountant in his description but the requirements don't meet the education requirements, or the title CPA.
At the 2011 annual meeting a by-law was passed by the residents that basically said that if the board was going to make a change to the policy manual that there was to be two READINGS during two board meetings, and the change was to be published on the WPA website so residents would have an opportunity to comment. I have searched the website several times for the published changed job description and it isn't there. This has been the case with every one of the changes your board has made.
*If you'd like to read the by-law, you can't. The by-laws are on the website but this one isn't INCLUDED!
Leaving out a by-law that you and I approved shouldn't happen but, I gave the board a chance and asked to read their hard copy of the by-laws. IT ISN'T IN THERE. I was told Garrison, Legal Chair, is checking with the attorney to see if it was registered?????? Wasn't he the LEGAL CHAIR DURING THE TIME YOU AND I VOTED? DOES OUR VOTE COUNT FOR ANYTHING?
Here's the problem, I believe that your board has to rescind policy manual change they have made since the annual meeting of 2011 and start again. THEY HAVE NEVER PUT THE PROPOSED CHANGES ON THE WEBSITE FOR RESIDENT REVIEW AND COMMENT. In the case of one of the most recent changes - the accounting function job description, DeMarchi never read it during the meeting, didn't post it for YOUR review and comment, and your board passed it. I'm guessing your board MAY sing, "WE DIDN'T HAVE TO FOLLOW IT BECAUSE IT WASN'T REGISTERED. IF THEY DO, WE BETTER SING, "WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE"!
IMPORTANT: The by-law that your board has ignored was put forward after a group of residents became upset because in one board meeting, McMillin made a motion to dumb down the requirements of the policy manual regarding the qualifications of the person who did our "accounting function". At the time the policy manual required an ACCOUNTANT. He had it removed so he could bring accounting in house and hire the candidate of his choice. THE RESIDENTS WANTED INPUT TO THE PROPOSED POLICY MANUAL CHANGES! I've seen the change DeMarchi wants to make and he dumbed it down further (To be provided in another article.). He does refer to accountant in his description but the requirements don't meet the education requirements, or the title CPA.
Monday, May 20, 2013
THE WPA APRIL 16 BOARD MEETING - THE DRAINAGE REPORT
I've listened to the tape of the April 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
DeMarchi, "One of the areas other than the one last month that I continue to work on was....I did find out I had to file for the permits for the Wedgefield ditch.... are the erosion on the adjacent property. So I will work on that when I get back. The other thing is we've gotten TWO BIDS ???for the cleaning of the ditches and the road ways on the Enclave. The end of Frances Parker, the new section and Joanna Gillard. One of the problems there is that the mowers can't get in there and mow the berms adequately and we have a problem with drainage because it backs up in these because of all the weeds and the trees and of the two bids I got, one was from Great Lawns for $1,100 and one was DE and GC (hard to hear company initials), and theirs was for $1,080, and I've drawn up a contract which they have signed and they have are waiting for our approval." Wait a minute. A few months ago, this same board allowed McMillin to refuse to get bids for the clearing of the spoil site, drag the spoil site management away from Water Amenities, and call on a clause in the Great Lawns contract that allows him to give them "like work". How does this board approve that, not use CONSISTENCY, and ask for bids outside to perform work to enable them to mow??????? This is more of a situation of "like work" than the crazy move made by the board prior to this. Now for $20 THEY GIVE THE WORK TO ANOTHER UNKNOWN CONTRACTOR????????? DeMarchi continues, "OK, and Jacky, you're going to administer that for me. OK. They've provided their insurance and what their contract requires them to do is clear adjacent to the road an area of 12-15 feet or to a tree line. If a tree is 10 feet from the rod they will do that. They will then clear around all electrical boxes and utilities and things like that and they will take the debris off the road, OK and they are going to bring in two pieces of equipment. They are going to bring in a bush hog and a brush cutter and they are, which will take down trees and stuff like that. I'm going to ask the board to approve up to $1,200 for the ditch cleaning in the Enclave." There is a second to the motion. I can't identify the speaker with certainty. President Walton repeats the motion and asks for discussion.
McBride, "I know when I bought my property I was responsible for the drainage. They made that perfectly clear. I paid for all the drainage that had to be done on my property. Now we got land there that we ...How are we handling this?" DeMarchi, Well first of all John, if you recall when the Enclave was created OK, the board that sat at that time accepted that disaster area as it was OK. The developer at the time along with Grand Strand Engineering did a very poor job. In fact going over the drainage maps and n the case of Mr. Greyson was building down there was ...The drainage maps put together by Grand Strand Engineering are incorrect. The flow does not go as they indicate. Most areas of th Enclave OK, particularly on Joanna Gillard, we don't know where the ditches are, or where the water is going because the weeds are so high and there are trees growing in the ditches so those are all the reasons. ...will all be removed and then grounds..., OK we'll be able to maintain that, OK...They will mow all brems in the area. Right now and the other factor is, and Larry will discuss is the trash that is thrown out there and the fact that there are things going on with all the brush and everything else that you can't see what is going on. The area needs to be taken care of an cleaned up and mowed and get all that debris out of here so we can say where it is going." Where has ARC been all this time? Both President Walton and DeMarchi have been on ARC for a LONG TIME. Why weren't they insisting these things be taken care of? I'm pretty certain DeMarchi built two homes, of the few homes, on Joanna Gillard. He may even have owned the lots he built on there. Did he? If so, as a professional, didn't he notice any of the problems, and if so why didn't he bring this up then? All those old boards are so irresponsible! If so, why did he buy property like that? McBride is correct, owners are responsible. This comes down to buyer beware. It gets better. He plans more work there.
DeMarchi, "The NEXT PROJECT will be to probably bring in a back hoe and track hoe, box blade, whatever we need because we have several areas where there is no flow and the dirt and there is no flow and the dirt there is no swale and the dirt is higher than the road, OK. Grand Strand Engineering ha ruined some of the lots there because they made the road so high that now some of those lots would flood. They'd have water on them. I took a track hoe two years ago and built a berm out there to prevent that. This is something that is sorely lacking. That whole Enclave area is deplorable, OK. If you really and look at it and yet the board accepted those conditions years ago and now the residents down there have to live with it....and clean it up." One, he took things into his own hands by his own words. Two, if lots were bought and sold with houses built - buyer be ware. Why did these people buy there? Who made promises to them?
McBride, "Did people buy these lots?" DeMarchi, "These lots are owned by individuals and corporations and things like that." Good, let them pay for the problem. Look at the governing documents. Ditches, drainage are the responsibility of the owner. McBride, "and they bought there knowing .....Their not responsible?" President Walton, "That is part of ......roads. We're talking about........The lots are not mowed and what we're trying to .... is just the right way.....part of drainage." Portions of what all President Walton said were difficult to hear. Someone else says, "It is not private property?" DeMarchi, "Another thing, you said these people bought those lots knowing this. No, WE didn't. WE did not buy those lots knowing that because WE....those lots were all owned prior to any of the infer structure or roadway going in. MY house OK, set almost2 feet above the old road. When Grand Strand Engineering got done they wanted water to flow up hill and they took....took ME 430 cubic yards of dirt to put MY house up to street level" President Walton, "This is the same area...Larry was it last year we had to regrade because...." McMillin, ...problems where those 3 new houses...We may have to do some of that out in that other area President Walton, "Now once that is taken care of then the property owner maintains that to the road, but right now they're not maintained lots......" Why do some owners have to maintain and others not? Garrison, "We consistently, you know this...clean or re-cutting of ditches, or drainage ditches along a number of streets....This is a situation where you can't begin to get there. If we get this other stuff out of the way...know what you want to do in terms of...." Too many begin to speak at the board table. Hard to understand. What is interesting is that the president doesn't pound the gavel. President Walton, "foot and a half of water always".
McBride, "The reason I bring this up is because I know for a fact that you helped with drainage, but we've also charged. I remember I was on the board...We were doing grading. We charged them $2.00 a foot to clean their ditches out. Ended up to be $4,000 and they were charged $4.00 a foot." Someone on the board cuts in but what they say can't be heard on the tape. McBride continues, "They were charged for it. That was the ditch work. You say we need to be consistent. Be consistent, better to go back and say consistent....where and why....something also doesn't understand either." McBride is shut down by President Walton who says, "I THINK WE'VE GONE BEYOND WHAT THE ACTUAL MOTION WAS....JUST GETTIN TO WHERE OUR GROUNDS CREW CAN MOW." DeMarchi, "It is going to have to be regraded John. It ...the roads where water sits there for a day or two. It get under that road an...lucky haven't had a hard winter...way to destroy roads." McBride, "Got that on Swamp Fox." President Walton, " ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND." Your board all vote yes except for McBride, who abstains.
First, President Walton tries to shut McBride down twice. This board is hell bent on fixing the areas that DeMarchi wants fixed, at the expense of the association. They are violating our governing documents. They fail to acknowledge that McBride is correct. Where s there concern for Swamp Fox residents, if they want consistency? Residents were billed, under INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT for drainage work. I reviewed the actual documents a few years ago. When that board did that they followed all the governing documents and billed the home, or lot owner. Have some other boards let it slide and just let us all pay? Yes. Under the law, repeating a wrong, doesn't make you correct. There have been other boards like this one that did political favors for themselves and their friends. This speaks to more inner board deals, "I support what you want, and you'll support what I want", rather than "we'll govern according to our covenants, by-laws, and policies". This looks like conflict of interest. Notice the MY and WE, relating to property owners? Note, to McBride: keep bringing these things up. Make sure the minutes reflect your votes. Protect yourself for, if, and when lawsuits follow.
DeMarchi, "One of the areas other than the one last month that I continue to work on was....I did find out I had to file for the permits for the Wedgefield ditch.... are the erosion on the adjacent property. So I will work on that when I get back. The other thing is we've gotten TWO BIDS ???for the cleaning of the ditches and the road ways on the Enclave. The end of Frances Parker, the new section and Joanna Gillard. One of the problems there is that the mowers can't get in there and mow the berms adequately and we have a problem with drainage because it backs up in these because of all the weeds and the trees and of the two bids I got, one was from Great Lawns for $1,100 and one was DE and GC (hard to hear company initials), and theirs was for $1,080, and I've drawn up a contract which they have signed and they have are waiting for our approval." Wait a minute. A few months ago, this same board allowed McMillin to refuse to get bids for the clearing of the spoil site, drag the spoil site management away from Water Amenities, and call on a clause in the Great Lawns contract that allows him to give them "like work". How does this board approve that, not use CONSISTENCY, and ask for bids outside to perform work to enable them to mow??????? This is more of a situation of "like work" than the crazy move made by the board prior to this. Now for $20 THEY GIVE THE WORK TO ANOTHER UNKNOWN CONTRACTOR????????? DeMarchi continues, "OK, and Jacky, you're going to administer that for me. OK. They've provided their insurance and what their contract requires them to do is clear adjacent to the road an area of 12-15 feet or to a tree line. If a tree is 10 feet from the rod they will do that. They will then clear around all electrical boxes and utilities and things like that and they will take the debris off the road, OK and they are going to bring in two pieces of equipment. They are going to bring in a bush hog and a brush cutter and they are, which will take down trees and stuff like that. I'm going to ask the board to approve up to $1,200 for the ditch cleaning in the Enclave." There is a second to the motion. I can't identify the speaker with certainty. President Walton repeats the motion and asks for discussion.
McBride, "I know when I bought my property I was responsible for the drainage. They made that perfectly clear. I paid for all the drainage that had to be done on my property. Now we got land there that we ...How are we handling this?" DeMarchi, Well first of all John, if you recall when the Enclave was created OK, the board that sat at that time accepted that disaster area as it was OK. The developer at the time along with Grand Strand Engineering did a very poor job. In fact going over the drainage maps and n the case of Mr. Greyson was building down there was ...The drainage maps put together by Grand Strand Engineering are incorrect. The flow does not go as they indicate. Most areas of th Enclave OK, particularly on Joanna Gillard, we don't know where the ditches are, or where the water is going because the weeds are so high and there are trees growing in the ditches so those are all the reasons. ...will all be removed and then grounds..., OK we'll be able to maintain that, OK...They will mow all brems in the area. Right now and the other factor is, and Larry will discuss is the trash that is thrown out there and the fact that there are things going on with all the brush and everything else that you can't see what is going on. The area needs to be taken care of an cleaned up and mowed and get all that debris out of here so we can say where it is going." Where has ARC been all this time? Both President Walton and DeMarchi have been on ARC for a LONG TIME. Why weren't they insisting these things be taken care of? I'm pretty certain DeMarchi built two homes, of the few homes, on Joanna Gillard. He may even have owned the lots he built on there. Did he? If so, as a professional, didn't he notice any of the problems, and if so why didn't he bring this up then? All those old boards are so irresponsible! If so, why did he buy property like that? McBride is correct, owners are responsible. This comes down to buyer beware. It gets better. He plans more work there.
DeMarchi, "The NEXT PROJECT will be to probably bring in a back hoe and track hoe, box blade, whatever we need because we have several areas where there is no flow and the dirt and there is no flow and the dirt there is no swale and the dirt is higher than the road, OK. Grand Strand Engineering ha ruined some of the lots there because they made the road so high that now some of those lots would flood. They'd have water on them. I took a track hoe two years ago and built a berm out there to prevent that. This is something that is sorely lacking. That whole Enclave area is deplorable, OK. If you really and look at it and yet the board accepted those conditions years ago and now the residents down there have to live with it....and clean it up." One, he took things into his own hands by his own words. Two, if lots were bought and sold with houses built - buyer be ware. Why did these people buy there? Who made promises to them?
McBride, "Did people buy these lots?" DeMarchi, "These lots are owned by individuals and corporations and things like that." Good, let them pay for the problem. Look at the governing documents. Ditches, drainage are the responsibility of the owner. McBride, "and they bought there knowing .....Their not responsible?" President Walton, "That is part of ......roads. We're talking about........The lots are not mowed and what we're trying to .... is just the right way.....part of drainage." Portions of what all President Walton said were difficult to hear. Someone else says, "It is not private property?" DeMarchi, "Another thing, you said these people bought those lots knowing this. No, WE didn't. WE did not buy those lots knowing that because WE....those lots were all owned prior to any of the infer structure or roadway going in. MY house OK, set almost2 feet above the old road. When Grand Strand Engineering got done they wanted water to flow up hill and they took....took ME 430 cubic yards of dirt to put MY house up to street level" President Walton, "This is the same area...Larry was it last year we had to regrade because...." McMillin, ...problems where those 3 new houses...We may have to do some of that out in that other area President Walton, "Now once that is taken care of then the property owner maintains that to the road, but right now they're not maintained lots......" Why do some owners have to maintain and others not? Garrison, "We consistently, you know this...clean or re-cutting of ditches, or drainage ditches along a number of streets....This is a situation where you can't begin to get there. If we get this other stuff out of the way...know what you want to do in terms of...." Too many begin to speak at the board table. Hard to understand. What is interesting is that the president doesn't pound the gavel. President Walton, "foot and a half of water always".
McBride, "The reason I bring this up is because I know for a fact that you helped with drainage, but we've also charged. I remember I was on the board...We were doing grading. We charged them $2.00 a foot to clean their ditches out. Ended up to be $4,000 and they were charged $4.00 a foot." Someone on the board cuts in but what they say can't be heard on the tape. McBride continues, "They were charged for it. That was the ditch work. You say we need to be consistent. Be consistent, better to go back and say consistent....where and why....something also doesn't understand either." McBride is shut down by President Walton who says, "I THINK WE'VE GONE BEYOND WHAT THE ACTUAL MOTION WAS....JUST GETTIN TO WHERE OUR GROUNDS CREW CAN MOW." DeMarchi, "It is going to have to be regraded John. It ...the roads where water sits there for a day or two. It get under that road an...lucky haven't had a hard winter...way to destroy roads." McBride, "Got that on Swamp Fox." President Walton, " ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND." Your board all vote yes except for McBride, who abstains.
First, President Walton tries to shut McBride down twice. This board is hell bent on fixing the areas that DeMarchi wants fixed, at the expense of the association. They are violating our governing documents. They fail to acknowledge that McBride is correct. Where s there concern for Swamp Fox residents, if they want consistency? Residents were billed, under INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT for drainage work. I reviewed the actual documents a few years ago. When that board did that they followed all the governing documents and billed the home, or lot owner. Have some other boards let it slide and just let us all pay? Yes. Under the law, repeating a wrong, doesn't make you correct. There have been other boards like this one that did political favors for themselves and their friends. This speaks to more inner board deals, "I support what you want, and you'll support what I want", rather than "we'll govern according to our covenants, by-laws, and policies". This looks like conflict of interest. Notice the MY and WE, relating to property owners? Note, to McBride: keep bringing these things up. Make sure the minutes reflect your votes. Protect yourself for, if, and when lawsuits follow.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
ONE MORE REPORT FROM THE APRIL WPA MEETING - THE DRAINAGE REPORT, A REQUEST WE SHOULD ALL BE MAKING TO PRESIDENT WALTON
DRAINAGE
The Wedgefield Examiner has transcribed the April Drainage Report. The transcription will be added later today. More than a few questions surface after listening to it. If you haven't listened to that portion of the tape, you should.
*Why do some have to pay and others not?
*Does buyer beware surface when you buy property?
*If a board member's property is directly involved along with property he sold, and contracted to build on for the new owner, is conflict of interest involved, if the board member makes a motion to spend association funds, for services that other residents have had to pay for, and then votes to approve his own motion?
*Why if McMillin called on a clause in the grounds contract to avoid securing bids, wasn't that same clause used in selecting a vendor for this related drainage contract? Why was a known good performing vendor shoved aside for a $20 difference in a bid, for an unknown performer?
*Does this contract violate consistency, ethics, and possibly surface the question of conflict of interest?
*Why did President Walton shut down the discussion on the motion, saying the equivalent of "discussion had gone too far a field", when the questions went unanswered, and they were legitimate?
Read the transcription later today.
REQUEST TO PRESIDENT WALTON
As a resident, I'm left to just publicly asking the question, because your president and his board don't have the ethics, or are unwilling to discuss their actions openly and, respond to residents.
Mr. President, will you please bring and read the Code of Ethics you had every member of the board sign, and explain how the fiasco that has happened with the Water Amenities Committee and many of your board members, comes any where near living up to it, during the May WPA board meeting? Will you please bring the complete by-laws and explain how your board has made all the constant changes to the policy manual, while violating the newest by-law, approved by a vote of the residents in 2011?
The Wedgefield Examiner has transcribed the April Drainage Report. The transcription will be added later today. More than a few questions surface after listening to it. If you haven't listened to that portion of the tape, you should.
*Why do some have to pay and others not?
*Does buyer beware surface when you buy property?
*If a board member's property is directly involved along with property he sold, and contracted to build on for the new owner, is conflict of interest involved, if the board member makes a motion to spend association funds, for services that other residents have had to pay for, and then votes to approve his own motion?
*Why if McMillin called on a clause in the grounds contract to avoid securing bids, wasn't that same clause used in selecting a vendor for this related drainage contract? Why was a known good performing vendor shoved aside for a $20 difference in a bid, for an unknown performer?
*Does this contract violate consistency, ethics, and possibly surface the question of conflict of interest?
*Why did President Walton shut down the discussion on the motion, saying the equivalent of "discussion had gone too far a field", when the questions went unanswered, and they were legitimate?
Read the transcription later today.
REQUEST TO PRESIDENT WALTON
As a resident, I'm left to just publicly asking the question, because your president and his board don't have the ethics, or are unwilling to discuss their actions openly and, respond to residents.
Mr. President, will you please bring and read the Code of Ethics you had every member of the board sign, and explain how the fiasco that has happened with the Water Amenities Committee and many of your board members, comes any where near living up to it, during the May WPA board meeting? Will you please bring the complete by-laws and explain how your board has made all the constant changes to the policy manual, while violating the newest by-law, approved by a vote of the residents in 2011?
Friday, May 17, 2013
A TRANSCRIPTION OF THE FEBRUARY WATER AMENITIES REPORT (FROM YOUR BOARD MEMBERS LIPS), AS TO WHAT WOULD BE DONE WITH THE OLD # 1 LANDING DOCK, JUST PRIOR TO APPROVING FUNDS TO REPLACE IT
UPDATED ONE HALF HOUR AFTER PUBLICATION: Will the person who took the video of the crew moving the dock, please contact me at wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com , I have the capacity on the blog to show video. I think it is time you saw some of this board and committee at work. I just wish there was a tape of the phone call when one of our board and committee members cursed at, and physically threatened another board and committee member. Since the contractor didn't complete the job, pull the dock up, did we pay the full amount of the contract? If you have a picture of the dock in the canals, or the FOR SALE SIGN, please send it to the address above.
I've listened to the tape of the February 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've taken the board members words in the discussion that follows, after the motion is made and seconded to replace the old #1 landing dock.
President Walton asks, "Do these three bids include removing the old one?" John Walton, Water Amenities Chair, "Not to take it off site. Just to PULL IT OUT." President Walton, "Yes, it will still be in our possession." Garrison asks about the cost to DISPOSE OF IT. Some of this part of the discussion becomes hard to hear and I listen with ear phones. If these guys are proud of what they are doing, they should ALL take the mike and speak loud and clear. You can hear John Walton say, "We could do it by ourselves." Garrison says, "DRAG IT UT AND CUT IT UP." DeMarchi, "I thought at the discussion last month the old dock had some serviceable life in it? Garrison, "Well yes and no. IF IT STILL HAS SOME SERVICEABLE LIFE IN IT THEN WHY REPLACE IT? I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT IN SOME BODY'S CANAL IN THE BACK YARD. If somebody wanted it....." DeMarchi, "IF IT WASN'T SERVICEABLE, WHY WOULD ANYBODY BE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO BUY IT? I can't make out the voice, but someone on the board says, "THE RIVER HAS BEAT IT TO PIECES." President Walton, "Some of the floaters re coming out of it." Garrison, "I have no problem with recognizing it needs to be replaced. I think replacing it is a good idea." Anderson asks questions about the time frame for completion. DeMarchi, DOES HE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PICK THAT DOCK UP AND PUT IT ON THE SHORE SO IT CAN BE DISSEMBLED?" John Walton, Water Amenities Chair, "SURE, SURE" HE'LL DO THAT AS PART OF HIS PRICE."
COMMENTS:
What part of this did the board and Water Amenities Committee members involved in this mess, not get? Oh, I think they understood but are so use to pulling these kind of hi jinx, they thought they could continue on. The board and committee members involved in this need to resign. I was told there might be a video available of some of the moving of the dock. I think the board should answer questions now.
I've listened to the tape of the February 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've taken the board members words in the discussion that follows, after the motion is made and seconded to replace the old #1 landing dock.
President Walton asks, "Do these three bids include removing the old one?" John Walton, Water Amenities Chair, "Not to take it off site. Just to PULL IT OUT." President Walton, "Yes, it will still be in our possession." Garrison asks about the cost to DISPOSE OF IT. Some of this part of the discussion becomes hard to hear and I listen with ear phones. If these guys are proud of what they are doing, they should ALL take the mike and speak loud and clear. You can hear John Walton say, "We could do it by ourselves." Garrison says, "DRAG IT UT AND CUT IT UP." DeMarchi, "I thought at the discussion last month the old dock had some serviceable life in it? Garrison, "Well yes and no. IF IT STILL HAS SOME SERVICEABLE LIFE IN IT THEN WHY REPLACE IT? I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT IN SOME BODY'S CANAL IN THE BACK YARD. If somebody wanted it....." DeMarchi, "IF IT WASN'T SERVICEABLE, WHY WOULD ANYBODY BE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO BUY IT? I can't make out the voice, but someone on the board says, "THE RIVER HAS BEAT IT TO PIECES." President Walton, "Some of the floaters re coming out of it." Garrison, "I have no problem with recognizing it needs to be replaced. I think replacing it is a good idea." Anderson asks questions about the time frame for completion. DeMarchi, DOES HE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PICK THAT DOCK UP AND PUT IT ON THE SHORE SO IT CAN BE DISSEMBLED?" John Walton, Water Amenities Chair, "SURE, SURE" HE'LL DO THAT AS PART OF HIS PRICE."
COMMENTS:
What part of this did the board and Water Amenities Committee members involved in this mess, not get? Oh, I think they understood but are so use to pulling these kind of hi jinx, they thought they could continue on. The board and committee members involved in this need to resign. I was told there might be a video available of some of the moving of the dock. I think the board should answer questions now.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
IS THE WPA BOARD & WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE ANSWER TO THE "OLD # 1 LANDING DOCK SITUATION" TO SELL IT? IS IT REALLY FOR SALE? IF IT IS, IT SHOULDN'T FLY AND THE QUESTIONS REMAIN THE SAME
You'll have to read the postings of the last few days to follow this article. If you have been reading you'll understand the headline. Today, I received a call and was told that the old number one landing dock, unrepairable, needed to be replaced?????, would be hauled out of here so as not to land in our "backyard", survived towing, was placed behind a private residence in the canals, is NOW for sale. I took a drive but it is difficult to see from the road. We'll go on the basis that IF some of the board and the Water Amenities Committee feel that this POSSIBLE move takes away the questions, they are wrong! Why? Too much water over the proverbial bridge and screams cover "our tracks", which travel up and down like a Billy goat and the trail is more than GRUFF!
The questions follow, some repeated, some new.
*Why would we as residents allow this board to hood wink us, while ignoring organization structure FULL BOARD, EVERY COMMITTEE MEMBER informed?
*Why expect the situation to go away, after the actions that have occurred, differ DIRECTLY from what was stated at the board meetings?
*Why expect that threats to individual board/committee members, by other committee/board members, along with a "hate campaign", be viewed as acceptable by decent residents?
*Who on the board and Water Amenities Committee knew the dock was going to be towed into the canals?
*Who towed the dock?
*Why would you be trying to SELL something that couldn't be repaired, unless you didn't need the dock replaced in the first place?
*If it is for sale, who authorized it?
*If those who knew, and those who towed it, committee or board are so confident that they are doing what they voted on during an open meeting, why haven't they answered my resident questions, and gone to a poor PLAN "B"?
The questions follow, some repeated, some new.
*Why would we as residents allow this board to hood wink us, while ignoring organization structure FULL BOARD, EVERY COMMITTEE MEMBER informed?
*Why expect the situation to go away, after the actions that have occurred, differ DIRECTLY from what was stated at the board meetings?
*Why expect that threats to individual board/committee members, by other committee/board members, along with a "hate campaign", be viewed as acceptable by decent residents?
*Who on the board and Water Amenities Committee knew the dock was going to be towed into the canals?
*Who towed the dock?
*Why would you be trying to SELL something that couldn't be repaired, unless you didn't need the dock replaced in the first place?
*If it is for sale, who authorized it?
*If those who knew, and those who towed it, committee or board are so confident that they are doing what they voted on during an open meeting, why haven't they answered my resident questions, and gone to a poor PLAN "B"?
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
ARE WE HEADED BACK TO GOING FROM BAD TO WORSE? WHO ON THIS "COHESIVE BOARD" IS AWARE OF THE ALLEGED THREATS OF THE "GOOD OLD BOY'S NETWORK BOARD"?
NOTE: I have not spoken to, or taken information directly from the board members who are directly involved. What I am writing about has come from more than four individuals carrying the same story. HERE IT IS. IT SHOULD ALARM ANY ADULT MEMBER IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND IF TRUE, AND I BELIEVE IT IS, IN THE LEAST CAUSE YOU TO QUESTION THE BEHAVIOR OF BOTH BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
The incident that brought the rumored events centers around the recent action of old dock number one being hauled into the canals without the knowledge, discussion, etc., of the FULL board, and goes against what was stated at the board table. Board member A and a member of the Water Amenities Committee became aware that the dock had been placed in the canals. Board member A requested a meeting of the Water Amenities Committee to discuss the movement because it hadn't been discussed and went against what had been decided at the board table. When Board member A made the call they were directed to MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS, FOUL LANGUAGE was introduced into the conversation by board member B, also a member of the Water Amenities Committee, and then board member B threatened physical violence against board member A. In the mean time the dock resides behind a private residence and an apparent "hate board member A campaign" has been initiated. Board members A has been told by other Water Amenities Committee members that they should move and that they no longer have any friends here. Have we left the cohesive, old boy's network and moved to mafia tactics?
It wouldn't be the first time in recent history. Remember, as Walton sat on a recent board (during his term), he received threatening phone calls at home by another board member. McMillin laid the whole thing out at a board meeting. McMillin is on the Water Amenities Committee, will he do it again? We will see. Word is that board member B is "friend of his on the board".
We watched as a previous board removed security, terrorized two female board members with threats of incarceration, brought security back for a meeting when they had some particularly nasty business to conduct, removed security again, and a resident was sucker punched by our then president, as he exited a board meeting. That board made excuses for the president. Later, that same president asked the paid staff secretary to erase part of an official board meeting tape, admitted he asked, AND NOT A THING HAPPENED.
At some points in all that history, I had residents telling me they were AFRAID to attend meetings, and that it didn't make a difference what the board did, what by-laws, human social norms they violated and breached, because as individual residents, we were powerless to do anything about it. I think they were correct, because we've been headed down the same ugly, sometimes violent, road for months.
What do I mean? Illegal meetings behind closed doors. Vital decisions made behind closed doors and then barely presented at the board table, voted on as a for gone conclusion, and if CERTAIN board members ask questions, they are smirked at, ridiculed, and cackled at. Residents letters aren't answered. The last two meetings, resident comments weren't taken. Some of our by-laws aren't posted, the policy manual has been changed constantly - in my humble opinion without following a recent by-law, a management company was abused and wore out to the point they quit and now a lot that was wrong was them ??????, the Compliance Committee says that all is well????, the Legal Committee won't get legal opinions in WRITING so that as residents we can review them, etc. The residents who said we couldn't stop the nonsense before, are only correct if you sit by and say and do nothing. We have lost good governance, true open meetings, and every month our President watches it happen and lets it continue. We still have 2-3 other board members who were there during the previous violence and they continue to sit by again. It has to stop now, and President Walton needs to step up to the plate and examine this situation "out in the open", and take action.
The incident that brought the rumored events centers around the recent action of old dock number one being hauled into the canals without the knowledge, discussion, etc., of the FULL board, and goes against what was stated at the board table. Board member A and a member of the Water Amenities Committee became aware that the dock had been placed in the canals. Board member A requested a meeting of the Water Amenities Committee to discuss the movement because it hadn't been discussed and went against what had been decided at the board table. When Board member A made the call they were directed to MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS, FOUL LANGUAGE was introduced into the conversation by board member B, also a member of the Water Amenities Committee, and then board member B threatened physical violence against board member A. In the mean time the dock resides behind a private residence and an apparent "hate board member A campaign" has been initiated. Board members A has been told by other Water Amenities Committee members that they should move and that they no longer have any friends here. Have we left the cohesive, old boy's network and moved to mafia tactics?
It wouldn't be the first time in recent history. Remember, as Walton sat on a recent board (during his term), he received threatening phone calls at home by another board member. McMillin laid the whole thing out at a board meeting. McMillin is on the Water Amenities Committee, will he do it again? We will see. Word is that board member B is "friend of his on the board".
We watched as a previous board removed security, terrorized two female board members with threats of incarceration, brought security back for a meeting when they had some particularly nasty business to conduct, removed security again, and a resident was sucker punched by our then president, as he exited a board meeting. That board made excuses for the president. Later, that same president asked the paid staff secretary to erase part of an official board meeting tape, admitted he asked, AND NOT A THING HAPPENED.
At some points in all that history, I had residents telling me they were AFRAID to attend meetings, and that it didn't make a difference what the board did, what by-laws, human social norms they violated and breached, because as individual residents, we were powerless to do anything about it. I think they were correct, because we've been headed down the same ugly, sometimes violent, road for months.
What do I mean? Illegal meetings behind closed doors. Vital decisions made behind closed doors and then barely presented at the board table, voted on as a for gone conclusion, and if CERTAIN board members ask questions, they are smirked at, ridiculed, and cackled at. Residents letters aren't answered. The last two meetings, resident comments weren't taken. Some of our by-laws aren't posted, the policy manual has been changed constantly - in my humble opinion without following a recent by-law, a management company was abused and wore out to the point they quit and now a lot that was wrong was them ??????, the Compliance Committee says that all is well????, the Legal Committee won't get legal opinions in WRITING so that as residents we can review them, etc. The residents who said we couldn't stop the nonsense before, are only correct if you sit by and say and do nothing. We have lost good governance, true open meetings, and every month our President watches it happen and lets it continue. We still have 2-3 other board members who were there during the previous violence and they continue to sit by again. It has to stop now, and President Walton needs to step up to the plate and examine this situation "out in the open", and take action.
LETTER TO THE BOARD REGARDING MARCH AND APRIL BOARD MEETINGS - SEE ARTICLE POSTED MAY 15
May 16, 2013
TO: WPA BOARD
FROM: Madeline Y. Claveloux
RE: (1) Visit to Office to Review Records, (2) Notice of Failure to Follow
By-Laws, (3) Failure To Respond To Residents & Request for Copy of
Policy In Effect Regarding Responding To Residents
CC: The Wedgefield Examiner
I’m requesting approval to visit the office on May 21 at 11:00AM, to review the following records: Correspondence File (6 months at least), Complete By-Laws, Policy Manual, Accounting Function Job Description.
I have listened to the tapes of the March and April WPA Board Meetings. First and second readings of the Accounting Function, to be included after approval, in the Policy Manual were supposed to have taken place. There never was a reading of the document, nor was it placed on the WPA website for resident review and comment. Why, and how does it stand as a legitimate change or addition to the Policy Manual? It appears you have violated a By-Law, and have failed to publish the By Law which was passed by the residents at the 2011 Annual Meeting. Why?
I’d like to review the correspondence file to verify for myself whether you are answering resident questions at all. You don’t answer my questions, and I know of several other residents who have gone months and months, with no response from the board. I’d like to see the policy regarding answering residents, that you appear to be ignoring for many. Also, will President Walton please provide the details of the steps he has taken to organize a committee to assist in developing a new policy for answering residents. I’m sure it is in writing and I’d like to be sent a copy. If there isn’t an effort in place, I’d like to know why. When will I receive an answer regarding my questions about the movement of WPA dock number one from the landing to the canals? This is WPA property which was to be destroyed and carried out of the association. As a resident in good standing, I have a right to know why the actions taken, differ from those discussed at the board table.
Thank you.
TO: WPA BOARD
FROM: Madeline Y. Claveloux
RE: (1) Visit to Office to Review Records, (2) Notice of Failure to Follow
By-Laws, (3) Failure To Respond To Residents & Request for Copy of
Policy In Effect Regarding Responding To Residents
CC: The Wedgefield Examiner
I’m requesting approval to visit the office on May 21 at 11:00AM, to review the following records: Correspondence File (6 months at least), Complete By-Laws, Policy Manual, Accounting Function Job Description.
I have listened to the tapes of the March and April WPA Board Meetings. First and second readings of the Accounting Function, to be included after approval, in the Policy Manual were supposed to have taken place. There never was a reading of the document, nor was it placed on the WPA website for resident review and comment. Why, and how does it stand as a legitimate change or addition to the Policy Manual? It appears you have violated a By-Law, and have failed to publish the By Law which was passed by the residents at the 2011 Annual Meeting. Why?
I’d like to review the correspondence file to verify for myself whether you are answering resident questions at all. You don’t answer my questions, and I know of several other residents who have gone months and months, with no response from the board. I’d like to see the policy regarding answering residents, that you appear to be ignoring for many. Also, will President Walton please provide the details of the steps he has taken to organize a committee to assist in developing a new policy for answering residents. I’m sure it is in writing and I’d like to be sent a copy. If there isn’t an effort in place, I’d like to know why. When will I receive an answer regarding my questions about the movement of WPA dock number one from the landing to the canals? This is WPA property which was to be destroyed and carried out of the association. As a resident in good standing, I have a right to know why the actions taken, differ from those discussed at the board table.
Thank you.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
PART VI: THE APRIL 16 WPA MEETING, OLD BUSINESS - LEADS TO A REQUEST TO VISIT THE OFFICE, REVIEW DOCUMENTS, AND QUESTIONS ABOUT COMPLIANCE
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. COMMENTS IN RED
This section of the meeting is under Old Business. There are three items, all changes to the policy manual. Keep that in mind as you read the comments at the end. The items I was most interested in were numbers two and three, (2) "2nd reading - Approval of Accountant job description" and (3) "2nd reading - Administration, add 7:0l.01. Service contract to be a 2 year term for Accounting and Maintenance".
What took place won't take long to report. DeMarchi makes the motion to approve the accounting job description. It passes. President Walton asks McMillin if he'd like to make the motion to approve the change to accommodate "service contract to be a 2 year term for accounting and maintenance. There is some discussion to add the word grounds to maintenance. There is an objection because then it wouldn't be second reading. They leave it as stated and then pass it.
COMMENTS:
I have an objection whether they changed one word, or not. The objection is in general because your board has been violating the by-laws for months. This board changes the policy manual like most people change their socks. They don't even attempt to do it legally, let alone ethically. Additionally, they treat the residents like they don't have a functioning brain. What's the problem? I'll attempt to list a few.
*Doesn't read mean that they will read the change? DeMarchi NEVER READ THE JOB DESCRIPTION. He didn't do it during the March Board Meeting when first READING was to have taken place.
*At the 2011 annual meeting a by-law was passed by the residents that basically said that if the board was going to make a change to the policy manual that there was to be two READINGS during two board meetings, and the change was to be published on the WPA website so residents would have an opportunity to comment. I have searched the website several times for the published changed job description and it isn't there. This has been the case with every one of the changes your board has made.
*If you'd like to read the by-law, you can't. The by-laws are on the website but this one isn't INCLUDED!
*If you would like to view the old job description in the policy manual, you can't. It has been off the site for several weeks, "to make changes". As a resident, you aren't provided with copies of these documents. GUESS YOUR BOARD CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT BECAUSE THEY HOPE YOU DON'T LOOK, READ, OR ASK.
*This looks, in the least, like a compliance problem. GUESS WHO IS IN CHARGE OF COMPLIANCE? DeMarchi. It could also be a LEGAL problem. Have you heard Legal Chair, Garrison, say one word about all this?
*Don't bother to write the board. President Walton was going to form a committee to determine how the board would answer residents, but that was over 6 months ago and HE HASN'T DONE A THING ABOUT IT.
I'll write the board over the weekend and post the letter on the blog.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
A LETTER TO THE BOARD REGARDING TWO ISSUES: (1) HOW DID THE "OLD NUMBER ONE LANDING DOCK END UP IN "OUR BACK YARD" (THE CANALS) WHEN WE WERE TOLD AT THE FEBRUARY BOARD MEETING IT WOULDN'T? (2) WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BOAT CLUB ARTICLE TO THE WRAGG?
DATE: May 9, 2013
TO: WPA BOARD
FROM: Madeline Y. Claveloux
RE: (1) OLD LANDING DOCK IN THE CANALS, OUR "BACK YARD"
(2) WHAT HAPPENED TO THE WEDGEFIELD BOAT CLUB ARTICLE
FOR THE LATEST WRAGG?
(1)Tonight, I took a ride to drop off some things at a friends house. What to my wondering eyes did appear? THE OLD DOCK FROM THE LANDING!!!! It is now floating in a canal and very visible near Wedgefield Rd. - benches and all!!!! The Wedgefield Examiner wrote about the replacement of the old dock - dock number one, in an article, "PART III: THE WPA FEBRUARY BOARD MEETING - THE WATER AMENITIES REPORT". I had attended the meeting, and captured the following information to the best of my ability.
"Water Amenities Chair, John Walton reported that he had three bids to replace the # 1, or original dock at the landing. A motion is made and seconded by Cline to proceed with a cost of $15,022. Before we go any further, remember that the Water Amenities Committee made a presentation to the board last year convincing them that a second dock was necessary to safety and ultimate use of the landing. The second dock was approved and the second dock (new) was completed late last year. I attended the presentation to the board and no mention was made of the now "unrepairable" number one dock. During the January Board Meeting, as the new 2013 budget hit the road (new money), John Walton proposed replacing dock number one, had one bid, and stated this "unrepairable dock", could be towed into the canals, for the use of projects there. Garrison questioned the use in the canal area, if it was truly "unrepairable", along with the fact that the committee only had one bid. A vote was held until February.
During the February meeting, Garrison wanted to know what the Water Amenities budget was for 2013. Treasurer, DeMarchi stated that it was $15,000 and there was approximately $19,000 in reserves. Please note that we haven't had a reserve study yet, and the figures for reserves were determined in a formula developed by DeMarchi. Garrison has more questions. He wants to know if the old #1 dock will be dissembled and removed, so as not to end up in our "back yard". Anderson wants to know what the time frame is. We're informed that the contractor could start by the end of February and have the project completed in March."
How did this piece of WPA property end up behind a private residence in our canals when we were told during the February WPA Board Meeting that it wouldn't end up in our "back yard", it had to be replaced, because it could not be repaired? Who knew about it on the board? Who, on the board made this decision? Were we just plain lied to?
(2) The Wedgefield Boat Club article for the latest Wragg, was published in the LAST WRAGG. I sent a new article for the Wragg by the deadline, in both WORD and PDF format, I sent it to the address Jackie Walters always used, copied the WPA office, and my committee. What happened? At the same time I sent the information for WOW. That article is correct. You got the correct material. Why didn't you use it?
As a member in good standing, I would like the issues in this letter addressed. I seldom get answers. In the case of the dock, you breached what was stated in your meeting and it hasn't come back to the board table. As for the article for the Wragg, this was my last official duty as editor for both WOW and The Wedgefield Boat Club. I have resigned the editor duties from both clubs and promised I would get these articles to the Wragg, before I handed the editor role to others. Was this slip up intentional?
TO: WPA BOARD
FROM: Madeline Y. Claveloux
RE: (1) OLD LANDING DOCK IN THE CANALS, OUR "BACK YARD"
(2) WHAT HAPPENED TO THE WEDGEFIELD BOAT CLUB ARTICLE
FOR THE LATEST WRAGG?
(1)Tonight, I took a ride to drop off some things at a friends house. What to my wondering eyes did appear? THE OLD DOCK FROM THE LANDING!!!! It is now floating in a canal and very visible near Wedgefield Rd. - benches and all!!!! The Wedgefield Examiner wrote about the replacement of the old dock - dock number one, in an article, "PART III: THE WPA FEBRUARY BOARD MEETING - THE WATER AMENITIES REPORT". I had attended the meeting, and captured the following information to the best of my ability.
"Water Amenities Chair, John Walton reported that he had three bids to replace the # 1, or original dock at the landing. A motion is made and seconded by Cline to proceed with a cost of $15,022. Before we go any further, remember that the Water Amenities Committee made a presentation to the board last year convincing them that a second dock was necessary to safety and ultimate use of the landing. The second dock was approved and the second dock (new) was completed late last year. I attended the presentation to the board and no mention was made of the now "unrepairable" number one dock. During the January Board Meeting, as the new 2013 budget hit the road (new money), John Walton proposed replacing dock number one, had one bid, and stated this "unrepairable dock", could be towed into the canals, for the use of projects there. Garrison questioned the use in the canal area, if it was truly "unrepairable", along with the fact that the committee only had one bid. A vote was held until February.
During the February meeting, Garrison wanted to know what the Water Amenities budget was for 2013. Treasurer, DeMarchi stated that it was $15,000 and there was approximately $19,000 in reserves. Please note that we haven't had a reserve study yet, and the figures for reserves were determined in a formula developed by DeMarchi. Garrison has more questions. He wants to know if the old #1 dock will be dissembled and removed, so as not to end up in our "back yard". Anderson wants to know what the time frame is. We're informed that the contractor could start by the end of February and have the project completed in March."
How did this piece of WPA property end up behind a private residence in our canals when we were told during the February WPA Board Meeting that it wouldn't end up in our "back yard", it had to be replaced, because it could not be repaired? Who knew about it on the board? Who, on the board made this decision? Were we just plain lied to?
(2) The Wedgefield Boat Club article for the latest Wragg, was published in the LAST WRAGG. I sent a new article for the Wragg by the deadline, in both WORD and PDF format, I sent it to the address Jackie Walters always used, copied the WPA office, and my committee. What happened? At the same time I sent the information for WOW. That article is correct. You got the correct material. Why didn't you use it?
As a member in good standing, I would like the issues in this letter addressed. I seldom get answers. In the case of the dock, you breached what was stated in your meeting and it hasn't come back to the board table. As for the article for the Wragg, this was my last official duty as editor for both WOW and The Wedgefield Boat Club. I have resigned the editor duties from both clubs and promised I would get these articles to the Wragg, before I handed the editor role to others. Was this slip up intentional?
Friday, May 3, 2013
PART V: THE APRIL 16 WPA MEETING - THE FINANCE 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. COMMENTS IN RED
DeMarchi starts the report with a motion. "As you can see you have your financial report. This is the last report you will see with the William Douglas logo on it. To the best of our knowledge these numbers are very accurate as far as the balance sheet goes with what we are currently putting into Quick Books. You can see we have $477,000 approximately to operate the plantation on. At this time what I would like to do is I would like to make a motion that the board pay the existing balance on the First Federal canal dredging loan.....$75,903.48 but there are some interest charges to add on that...accumulate so the motion would be that I would like to see the note paid off at First Federal canal dredging, not to exceed $80,000" The motion was seconded by Garrison. Walton repeats the motion and asks if there is discussion. McBride, I just need some help in finding this here and how much cash you have." DeMarchi: "If you look at the first page John, which is the unaudited balance sheet which is sort of this little sort of document right here." Mc Bride, "$76,000, how much cash do we have?" DeMarchi, "We have $476,840.62. The reason I proposed paying this is paying this note off is.. you've just taken $477,000 is and you say $77,000 is canal loan, that leaves us $400,000. $240 of that, OK, we have $200,000 in reserves right now. These are just rough numbers. We'll put another $40,000 in reserves this year which leaves us $160,000 according to my schedule in my proposed budget. We will be collecting approximately another $40,00 this year which means we'll have $200,000...Once the loan is paid off it will take us through of next year. $130,000.... We'll have a $70,000 balance at the end of the year which can then be put into what ever we want - into reserves or other expenditures." McBride, So we've got plenty of cash. This loan will be paid this year regardless." Someone says, "yes". McBride, "We have plenty of cash to do it. We should do t now and save..." DeMarchi, Right, right. We are saving approximately $1,700. We are paying 6 1/2% and we can't get that any where. It's the best we can get anywhere, so it s the best return on our investment." McBride, "OK, you've answered my questions. Thank you."
COMMENTS:
Thanks to DeMarchi for a complete over view of the "state of the union." He laid it all out. This allows the board, and you and me, to understand the credible decision making process on the motion. Additionally, he answers his fellow board member with respect.
Should we pay the loan off? It makes sense, as presented. I do have concerns because of the behavior of this board. I don't trust. Why? Too many of the decisions leading up to decisions like this have been made behind closed doors, rather than at the board table. Too often, certain board members are intentionally left out of the loop. I have one other nagging concern regarding our finances and expenditures. In 2012, Cline made a motion to pay off a large portion of the loan. Now we are paying off about $77,000 early. The board has done little, to nothing, regarding roads, drainage, etc. in almost two years. I'm concerned about the way Wedgefield looks. We are getting shabbier, and shabbier. If making these advance payments has caused this lack of attention, then we are all paying to big of a price. It appears there is money. Let's get ARC moving on violations, and clean up our roads, repair the gate house, clean up drainage.
DeMarchi starts the report with a motion. "As you can see you have your financial report. This is the last report you will see with the William Douglas logo on it. To the best of our knowledge these numbers are very accurate as far as the balance sheet goes with what we are currently putting into Quick Books. You can see we have $477,000 approximately to operate the plantation on. At this time what I would like to do is I would like to make a motion that the board pay the existing balance on the First Federal canal dredging loan.....$75,903.48 but there are some interest charges to add on that...accumulate so the motion would be that I would like to see the note paid off at First Federal canal dredging, not to exceed $80,000" The motion was seconded by Garrison. Walton repeats the motion and asks if there is discussion. McBride, I just need some help in finding this here and how much cash you have." DeMarchi: "If you look at the first page John, which is the unaudited balance sheet which is sort of this little sort of document right here." Mc Bride, "$76,000, how much cash do we have?" DeMarchi, "We have $476,840.62. The reason I proposed paying this is paying this note off is.. you've just taken $477,000 is and you say $77,000 is canal loan, that leaves us $400,000. $240 of that, OK, we have $200,000 in reserves right now. These are just rough numbers. We'll put another $40,000 in reserves this year which leaves us $160,000 according to my schedule in my proposed budget. We will be collecting approximately another $40,00 this year which means we'll have $200,000...Once the loan is paid off it will take us through of next year. $130,000.... We'll have a $70,000 balance at the end of the year which can then be put into what ever we want - into reserves or other expenditures." McBride, So we've got plenty of cash. This loan will be paid this year regardless." Someone says, "yes". McBride, "We have plenty of cash to do it. We should do t now and save..." DeMarchi, Right, right. We are saving approximately $1,700. We are paying 6 1/2% and we can't get that any where. It's the best we can get anywhere, so it s the best return on our investment." McBride, "OK, you've answered my questions. Thank you."
COMMENTS:
Thanks to DeMarchi for a complete over view of the "state of the union." He laid it all out. This allows the board, and you and me, to understand the credible decision making process on the motion. Additionally, he answers his fellow board member with respect.
Should we pay the loan off? It makes sense, as presented. I do have concerns because of the behavior of this board. I don't trust. Why? Too many of the decisions leading up to decisions like this have been made behind closed doors, rather than at the board table. Too often, certain board members are intentionally left out of the loop. I have one other nagging concern regarding our finances and expenditures. In 2012, Cline made a motion to pay off a large portion of the loan. Now we are paying off about $77,000 early. The board has done little, to nothing, regarding roads, drainage, etc. in almost two years. I'm concerned about the way Wedgefield looks. We are getting shabbier, and shabbier. If making these advance payments has caused this lack of attention, then we are all paying to big of a price. It appears there is money. Let's get ARC moving on violations, and clean up our roads, repair the gate house, clean up drainage.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)