Sunday, November 24, 2013
Thursday, November 21, 2013
A FEW MORE QUESTIONS COME TO MIND
After I prepared the article containing questions posed by a resident regarding engineering, roads, and drainage, a few questions came to mind. They are my questions. I won't write the board. I attend about 80% of the meetings, listen to the tapes of all the meetings, and periodically check the correspondence book. Your board doesn't answer residents. There haven't been any reports for about a year at the board table from the Community Liaison. We'll leave the questions and comment alone posed by the resident. Back to drainage.
We've been told that drainage work has to be done in the Enclave because everything was done wrong. Previous engineering companies were bad. Apparently, previous boards, without DeMarchi and President Walton's input, were wrong - made bad decisions. This board is willing to pay for work that previously new home builders (residents) were expected to pay. We'll leave that alone for now.
We've been told that they need to get the work in the Enclave done because there are new homes about to be built. Based on the inconsistency, conflict of interest, and self interest projects, I have a few questions, because I don't believe much of what this board says.
1) How many homes in the Enclave has ARC (Walton, DeMarchi, and now Johnson) received permit requests for?
2) Who are the builders of record, named in the documents?
Suspicious? Yes, with every reason to be so. Remember, DeMarchi is on about his 3rd drainage project for that area. Over the months he has talked about his property, his expertise, previous board failure, etc., regarding drainage. At the same time he bought more than one lot in that deplorable area (bad drainage), and sold some lots, and built homes on them, and sold them to people under what must have been deplorable conditions. Is he, or one of his friends, building in that area again? He listed some of his friends during a meeting in the last two months.
Just a few questions. No accusations. Where is the Compliance Committee in answering any of these type questions about conflict of interest, possible self gain, contracting, anything? I forgot for a minute, President Walton put DeMarchi, our treasurer, on ARC, Drainage, and Legal, in charge of Compliance! Maybe you will write and ask for an answer. Since the board fails to answer, I have no place to go but this blog and hope it will spur others on to ask the questions, maybe they'll answer you, if you have the right board connections.
We've been told that drainage work has to be done in the Enclave because everything was done wrong. Previous engineering companies were bad. Apparently, previous boards, without DeMarchi and President Walton's input, were wrong - made bad decisions. This board is willing to pay for work that previously new home builders (residents) were expected to pay. We'll leave that alone for now.
We've been told that they need to get the work in the Enclave done because there are new homes about to be built. Based on the inconsistency, conflict of interest, and self interest projects, I have a few questions, because I don't believe much of what this board says.
1) How many homes in the Enclave has ARC (Walton, DeMarchi, and now Johnson) received permit requests for?
2) Who are the builders of record, named in the documents?
Suspicious? Yes, with every reason to be so. Remember, DeMarchi is on about his 3rd drainage project for that area. Over the months he has talked about his property, his expertise, previous board failure, etc., regarding drainage. At the same time he bought more than one lot in that deplorable area (bad drainage), and sold some lots, and built homes on them, and sold them to people under what must have been deplorable conditions. Is he, or one of his friends, building in that area again? He listed some of his friends during a meeting in the last two months.
Just a few questions. No accusations. Where is the Compliance Committee in answering any of these type questions about conflict of interest, possible self gain, contracting, anything? I forgot for a minute, President Walton put DeMarchi, our treasurer, on ARC, Drainage, and Legal, in charge of Compliance! Maybe you will write and ask for an answer. Since the board fails to answer, I have no place to go but this blog and hope it will spur others on to ask the questions, maybe they'll answer you, if you have the right board connections.
A FEW RESIDENT QUESTIONS THAT AREN'T SENT TO THE BOARD BECAUSE THEY DON'T ANSWER. IN THIS CASE THEY COULDN'T BECAUSE IT APPEARS THERE IS NO CONSISTENCY OR LOGIC TO WHAT THEY ARE DOING
The questions pertained to roads and drainage. You'll remember the board brought real engineers into the current road projects. One area that is being repaired again is Duck Pond. Anyone would probably agree that engineering for projects on our roads is necessary. In the case of Duck Pond, it was repaired in 2010 or 11 when Huggins headed roads. He, and the board, except for one, refused to bring in engineers. Apparently, they were needed, because this board is investing our funds, once again, due to poorly planned past projects. Many who were sitting on the board during the last project continue to sit at the board table today. You might say, "give them credit for lessons learned". That's logical, except for the following resident questions.
(1)Why is it that this board will embrace engineering for road repair and not drainage? Good question. If you read the Reserve Study, at every turn of the page, the excerpts are advising the use of engineering services. Once again, there is no consistency of good business and administrative judgment. President Walton and DeMarchi are our resident experts and apparently don't feel the need for engineers. How does a road chair who brings engineering to the board table for his project, vote drainage projects without the support of engineering? How does anyone on that board who supported the vote for engineering on roads, vote for drainage projects that DeMarchi says were done incorrectly by all in the past, vote for drainage projects without the support of engineering, in the best interests of Wedgefield and the use of our assessment dollars, ignoring the advice in the Reserve Study and basic common sense?
(2) How does the road committee determine which projects are "most in need"? Do they ever take numbers into consideration? This resident thought that since road repair is needed in so many areas of the plantation, that they might consider high usage areas first. How many people are impacted by bad roads and travel on Duck Pond, compared to maybe, Wedgefield Road? We don't know the answer.
You can write the board and see if they answer. Visit the office and look at the correspondence book, review board reports, because the board doesn't respond and we haven't had a report from the Community Liaison in over a year. If you write and get an answer, please share it. I'd love to see how the board answers these two questions. Don't hold your breath, if you write to them.
(1)Why is it that this board will embrace engineering for road repair and not drainage? Good question. If you read the Reserve Study, at every turn of the page, the excerpts are advising the use of engineering services. Once again, there is no consistency of good business and administrative judgment. President Walton and DeMarchi are our resident experts and apparently don't feel the need for engineers. How does a road chair who brings engineering to the board table for his project, vote drainage projects without the support of engineering? How does anyone on that board who supported the vote for engineering on roads, vote for drainage projects that DeMarchi says were done incorrectly by all in the past, vote for drainage projects without the support of engineering, in the best interests of Wedgefield and the use of our assessment dollars, ignoring the advice in the Reserve Study and basic common sense?
(2) How does the road committee determine which projects are "most in need"? Do they ever take numbers into consideration? This resident thought that since road repair is needed in so many areas of the plantation, that they might consider high usage areas first. How many people are impacted by bad roads and travel on Duck Pond, compared to maybe, Wedgefield Road? We don't know the answer.
You can write the board and see if they answer. Visit the office and look at the correspondence book, review board reports, because the board doesn't respond and we haven't had a report from the Community Liaison in over a year. If you write and get an answer, please share it. I'd love to see how the board answers these two questions. Don't hold your breath, if you write to them.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
THE WPA ANNUAL MEETING: (1) THE NUMBERS, (2) CONCERNS, (3) ON PRINCIPLE & FOR THE RECORD
THE NUMBERS:
*214 votes were cast - slightly over 1/3 of the total residents voted
*The candidates, though uncontested (3 board slots & 3 candidates) received the following votes out of the 214 cast: Garrison - 164, Keith Johnson -194, Jacky Walton -169. That must mean that each of the following numbers represent the number of residents who took the time to write in "NO" next to the individual candidate names: Garrison - 50 NO, Johnson - 20 - NO, Walton - 45 - NO. A recommendation follows in the article for those who took the time to take this extra step and send a message to the individual candidates.
*By-Law Amendment # 1, restricting the power of the board to enter into loans, etc., above $15,000 passed. 142 votes were required to pass. 151 voted in favor, 63 opposed.
*By-Law Amendment # 2, requiring that the board contract the services of a certified Public Accountant failed. 142 votes were required to pass. 127 voted in favor, 87 opposed.
THE CONCERNS:
First, slightly over 1/3 of the total residents voted. This is down from over 50% in 2012. This board that fails to answer residents, fails to provide review of records for review by residents, recently failed to post meeting tapes on the WPA website for 10 months, failed to appropriately file and include the last by-law amendment for over two years and failed to live by it in the interim, fails to acknowledge actual costs of our "accounting function", forces us to pay for services to individual lot owners out of general funds, finds accounting records in private individual resident homes, fails to hold to their own votes, accepts poor contracting and individual board member self interest projects, contracts - conflict of interest - with not only a board member (self gain) but contracts with our president for services, abuses certain board members who question and fail to capitulate to their poor standards, appoints individual board members with poor records to chair positions etc., HAS CREATED THIS APATHY. Residents must be left feeling that they won't be heard and there is no road to good governance, or exit from bad governance.
Some residents have stated that they didn't bother to vote because they couldn't vote for these guys. When advised to at least make a statement on principle and write "NO" next to their names, they said they couldn't because there were people on the election committee who would note how they voted. They said they golf with some of those members, or certain board members would find out how they voted and those board members help them in their homes, with their boats, yards, etc. They need them. The question is one of principle. Why would you want people in your life helping you, who violate your principles and standards, for a game of golf, cards, social group, or work on your home projects? Where is individual integrity of principle? If you feel retaliation might occur, why wouldn't you want to make things better at the heart of your day to day life - your HOME and your neighborhood? Even in these circumstances, why are you willing to sit by and watch them not only abuse individual board members - your former friends at the board table, and assist them in pulling them from social circles in our near (here) and greater community (outside the gates)?
Does that sound hard? Look at a simple, relevant example, of how far the individual CURRENT board members have fallen in principle and decency, let alone good governance, and integrity of action and word. In 2011 there was a recall effort, under the state law used in the 2010 recall. We won't take the time now to go into detail. The basic fact is that SIX of the CURRENT BOARD were so appalled by the behavior and governance of five of the 2011 board, Garrison being one of them up for recall, that they signed petitions to call for a special meeting and REMOVE them, solicited signatures from other residents, and helped with the planning. Yet, five of the six who have tenure of 1- 4 years, have supported Garrison in votes, kept quiet while he called a questioning board member moronic, and overall attempted to make an elected board member look like a fool. I'd hate be one of you who might call them friend and expect that they would do the right thing in a desperate situation. They were elected for governance, nothing else. That is the only reason. What reason could you possibly give for allowing Garrison to be legal chair, vote to appoint one of his cohorts who authored letters to residents telling them not to pay their assessments - starve a board - to a committee, and then allow him month after month to come to the board table without written legal opinion, and vote his recommendation?
Some say, I'm not the kind to stand up and argue a point? While that is somewhat gutless, all it would take, whether board member or resident, is the bravery to do the right thing, by simply voting "NO", when it went against principle, good business practice, consistency, and the best interests of Wedgefield. Your board was elected to do the right thing. If they don't have the bravery to at least vote "NO" when needed, they need to resign. YOU NEED TO QUIT STANDING BY AND WATCHING THE DETERIORATION OF OUR HOMES AND COMMUNITY.
RECOMMENDATION TO THOSE WHO WERE BRAVE ENOUGH TO WRITE "NO" BY CANDIDATE NAMES: Get to the meetings, write the board even if they don't answer your questions, write and tell the board you will be coming to the office to review records because it is your right and THEY shouldn't have to go to a private residence to find all the records. When you find board votes and behaviors that are objectionable, ask to speak at a meeting and address your concern, it becomes part of the record. VOTE EVERY YEAR WITH YOUR CONSCIENCE AND DON'T BE AFRAID WHO WILL SEE HOW YOU VOTED. Don't call people friends easily. Right now it could appear that you don't mind being part of the destruction of other people you ONCE called friend, as you sit by in silence afraid of retaliation. Don't say "I just want peace", and let people abuse those you use to call friend. Friend or not, why would you allow it to happen to anyone? I don't know of anyone who is so financially desperate that they need the free services, or social club and gatherings, that they need to sit by and watch this kind of behavior, at the expense of other of their friends or neighbors. Don't you want your friends and neighbors to have principle?
ON PRINCIPLE AND FOR THE RECORD:
Does it hurt to find out that people you formerly called "friend", worked along side in promotion of good governance, will stand by and let others you both called "mutual friends" turn on you and hurt you? Yes, it does. I'm not special, but I'm old enough to know what my principles are and I won't give them up. It would hurt me in the long term, and I couldn't live with the lack of integrity. Have I lost some of what I use to call "friends"? Not really, because I misjudged them and didn't realize how little principle they had, and how willing they were to sit back and let our home and community be harmed by "special interests". In the end, I'd want to hold to principle, character, and moral values, and call people friends who don't give them up for what one of my friends said, "is just politics".
FOR THE RECORD IS IMPORTANT. I have been sued and put through a long legal tangled process. One of the things that stands out is "THE RECORD". Our minutes are sanitized, our association records often closed to us, our very meeting tapes kept off the WPA website for months, etc., so I will continue to transcribe tapes, gather information to the best of my ability, and make it available - FOR THE RECORD.
ADDED 11/21/13:
I posted the article above on the 20th. This morning a reader sent me the following:
"When you are in the final days of your life, what will you want? Will you hug that college degree in the walnut frame? Will you ask to be carried to the garage so you can sit in your car? Will you find comfort rereading your financial statement? Of course no, what will matter then will be PEOPLE. If relationships will matter then, shouldn't they matter now?" - Max Lucado
*214 votes were cast - slightly over 1/3 of the total residents voted
*The candidates, though uncontested (3 board slots & 3 candidates) received the following votes out of the 214 cast: Garrison - 164, Keith Johnson -194, Jacky Walton -169. That must mean that each of the following numbers represent the number of residents who took the time to write in "NO" next to the individual candidate names: Garrison - 50 NO, Johnson - 20 - NO, Walton - 45 - NO. A recommendation follows in the article for those who took the time to take this extra step and send a message to the individual candidates.
*By-Law Amendment # 1, restricting the power of the board to enter into loans, etc., above $15,000 passed. 142 votes were required to pass. 151 voted in favor, 63 opposed.
*By-Law Amendment # 2, requiring that the board contract the services of a certified Public Accountant failed. 142 votes were required to pass. 127 voted in favor, 87 opposed.
THE CONCERNS:
First, slightly over 1/3 of the total residents voted. This is down from over 50% in 2012. This board that fails to answer residents, fails to provide review of records for review by residents, recently failed to post meeting tapes on the WPA website for 10 months, failed to appropriately file and include the last by-law amendment for over two years and failed to live by it in the interim, fails to acknowledge actual costs of our "accounting function", forces us to pay for services to individual lot owners out of general funds, finds accounting records in private individual resident homes, fails to hold to their own votes, accepts poor contracting and individual board member self interest projects, contracts - conflict of interest - with not only a board member (self gain) but contracts with our president for services, abuses certain board members who question and fail to capitulate to their poor standards, appoints individual board members with poor records to chair positions etc., HAS CREATED THIS APATHY. Residents must be left feeling that they won't be heard and there is no road to good governance, or exit from bad governance.
Some residents have stated that they didn't bother to vote because they couldn't vote for these guys. When advised to at least make a statement on principle and write "NO" next to their names, they said they couldn't because there were people on the election committee who would note how they voted. They said they golf with some of those members, or certain board members would find out how they voted and those board members help them in their homes, with their boats, yards, etc. They need them. The question is one of principle. Why would you want people in your life helping you, who violate your principles and standards, for a game of golf, cards, social group, or work on your home projects? Where is individual integrity of principle? If you feel retaliation might occur, why wouldn't you want to make things better at the heart of your day to day life - your HOME and your neighborhood? Even in these circumstances, why are you willing to sit by and watch them not only abuse individual board members - your former friends at the board table, and assist them in pulling them from social circles in our near (here) and greater community (outside the gates)?
Does that sound hard? Look at a simple, relevant example, of how far the individual CURRENT board members have fallen in principle and decency, let alone good governance, and integrity of action and word. In 2011 there was a recall effort, under the state law used in the 2010 recall. We won't take the time now to go into detail. The basic fact is that SIX of the CURRENT BOARD were so appalled by the behavior and governance of five of the 2011 board, Garrison being one of them up for recall, that they signed petitions to call for a special meeting and REMOVE them, solicited signatures from other residents, and helped with the planning. Yet, five of the six who have tenure of 1- 4 years, have supported Garrison in votes, kept quiet while he called a questioning board member moronic, and overall attempted to make an elected board member look like a fool. I'd hate be one of you who might call them friend and expect that they would do the right thing in a desperate situation. They were elected for governance, nothing else. That is the only reason. What reason could you possibly give for allowing Garrison to be legal chair, vote to appoint one of his cohorts who authored letters to residents telling them not to pay their assessments - starve a board - to a committee, and then allow him month after month to come to the board table without written legal opinion, and vote his recommendation?
Some say, I'm not the kind to stand up and argue a point? While that is somewhat gutless, all it would take, whether board member or resident, is the bravery to do the right thing, by simply voting "NO", when it went against principle, good business practice, consistency, and the best interests of Wedgefield. Your board was elected to do the right thing. If they don't have the bravery to at least vote "NO" when needed, they need to resign. YOU NEED TO QUIT STANDING BY AND WATCHING THE DETERIORATION OF OUR HOMES AND COMMUNITY.
RECOMMENDATION TO THOSE WHO WERE BRAVE ENOUGH TO WRITE "NO" BY CANDIDATE NAMES: Get to the meetings, write the board even if they don't answer your questions, write and tell the board you will be coming to the office to review records because it is your right and THEY shouldn't have to go to a private residence to find all the records. When you find board votes and behaviors that are objectionable, ask to speak at a meeting and address your concern, it becomes part of the record. VOTE EVERY YEAR WITH YOUR CONSCIENCE AND DON'T BE AFRAID WHO WILL SEE HOW YOU VOTED. Don't call people friends easily. Right now it could appear that you don't mind being part of the destruction of other people you ONCE called friend, as you sit by in silence afraid of retaliation. Don't say "I just want peace", and let people abuse those you use to call friend. Friend or not, why would you allow it to happen to anyone? I don't know of anyone who is so financially desperate that they need the free services, or social club and gatherings, that they need to sit by and watch this kind of behavior, at the expense of other of their friends or neighbors. Don't you want your friends and neighbors to have principle?
ON PRINCIPLE AND FOR THE RECORD:
Does it hurt to find out that people you formerly called "friend", worked along side in promotion of good governance, will stand by and let others you both called "mutual friends" turn on you and hurt you? Yes, it does. I'm not special, but I'm old enough to know what my principles are and I won't give them up. It would hurt me in the long term, and I couldn't live with the lack of integrity. Have I lost some of what I use to call "friends"? Not really, because I misjudged them and didn't realize how little principle they had, and how willing they were to sit back and let our home and community be harmed by "special interests". In the end, I'd want to hold to principle, character, and moral values, and call people friends who don't give them up for what one of my friends said, "is just politics".
FOR THE RECORD IS IMPORTANT. I have been sued and put through a long legal tangled process. One of the things that stands out is "THE RECORD". Our minutes are sanitized, our association records often closed to us, our very meeting tapes kept off the WPA website for months, etc., so I will continue to transcribe tapes, gather information to the best of my ability, and make it available - FOR THE RECORD.
ADDED 11/21/13:
I posted the article above on the 20th. This morning a reader sent me the following:
"When you are in the final days of your life, what will you want? Will you hug that college degree in the walnut frame? Will you ask to be carried to the garage so you can sit in your car? Will you find comfort rereading your financial statement? Of course no, what will matter then will be PEOPLE. If relationships will matter then, shouldn't they matter now?" - Max Lucado
Friday, November 15, 2013
DON'T FORGET TO ATTEND THE ANNUAL MEETING AND VOTE - PLUS A RUMOR THAT HAS NO VALIDITY!
The Annual Meeting is the most important WPA meeting of the year. It will determine three individuals who will sit at the board table "in the best interests" of the association. We have opportunity to review the budget. It is really the only meeting when residents may speak during a meeting. Take time to consider whether we have been provided leadership by individuals who literally determine the quality of life where we live - Wedgefield. Have we been guided legally, ethically, and with strong business decisions? Can we trust what our board members say from meeting to meeting? Is there consistency in benefit to our residents? Does our board respond openly and honestly to our questions?
If not, put a big "NO" next to each of the candidate names. Put a big "NO" next to the by-law amendment that may be violating our covenants. Vote "YES" to bring in an accountant to manage our funds.
Don't forget to VOTE!
There is a rumor that The Wedgefield Examiner is losing interest in the blog. Not true! Family comes first. Our family has been on a year long journey with our daughter in Florence, who is in the process of adopting 3 more children. It is a international adoption. We've been helping out with errands, etc., as they go through the process. The children are siblings - two girls ages 4 and 9, and a boy - age 6. They will be home for Christmas.
If not, put a big "NO" next to each of the candidate names. Put a big "NO" next to the by-law amendment that may be violating our covenants. Vote "YES" to bring in an accountant to manage our funds.
Don't forget to VOTE!
There is a rumor that The Wedgefield Examiner is losing interest in the blog. Not true! Family comes first. Our family has been on a year long journey with our daughter in Florence, who is in the process of adopting 3 more children. It is a international adoption. We've been helping out with errands, etc., as they go through the process. The children are siblings - two girls ages 4 and 9, and a boy - age 6. They will be home for Christmas.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
NON PROFIT PUBLICATION ARTICLE ASSUMES TOO MUCH! DO WE HAVE THE PROFESSIONALS WE NEED TO GUIDE OUR HOA ADMINISTRATION?
PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AFTER YOU HAVE READ THE ARTICLE BELOW IT.
The following article was sent to me by a HOA president. Over the years we've discussed the boards of our respective HOAs. Our recent discussions have gone to the declared expertise of the WPA board, ever changing treasurers and their reporting, and the need for residents to have the assurance of qualified experts. Reserve studies entered conversation and the fact that up until this year we had drainage, roads, etc. on our operating budget, and now that was no longer the case. Look at DeMarchi's projected 2014 budget. These items no longer exist in the ever, all knowing, expertise of finance in the world of DeMarchi. After reading just one relevant article, you may find that you should be voting "YES" on the amendment calling for a real professional. What is the first thing this HOA advisor group recommends - "check with your accountant". They assume too much. Our all knowing self clamed expert board says we don't need one.
The following article was sent to me by a HOA president. Over the years we've discussed the boards of our respective HOAs. Our recent discussions have gone to the declared expertise of the WPA board, ever changing treasurers and their reporting, and the need for residents to have the assurance of qualified experts. Reserve studies entered conversation and the fact that up until this year we had drainage, roads, etc. on our operating budget, and now that was no longer the case. Look at DeMarchi's projected 2014 budget. These items no longer exist in the ever, all knowing, expertise of finance in the world of DeMarchi. After reading just one relevant article, you may find that you should be voting "YES" on the amendment calling for a real professional. What is the first thing this HOA advisor group recommends - "check with your accountant". They assume too much. Our all knowing self clamed expert board says we don't need one.
TWO ARTICLES COMBINED: (1) REMINDER TO GET YOUR PROXY INTO THE WPA OFFICE TODAY, (2) PART II - DO MEMBERS OF THIS CURRENT COHESIVE BOARD SUPPPORT THE POTENTIAL ILLEGAL MOVES OF SOME ON THIS BOARD TO KEEP THEIR PET PROJECTS COMING? WILL OUR PRESIDENT INVESTIGATE BY TAKING THE NECESSARY STEPS TO MAKE SURE THAT A PROPOSED BY-LAW CHANGE DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH OUR COVENANTS?
TODAY, YOUR PROXY IS DUE IN THE OFFICE BY 2:00pm. PROTECT YOUR VOTE BY GETTING IT TO THE OFFICE TODAY, EVEN IF YOU PLAN ON ATTENDING THE MEETING. LIFE HAPPENS AND OFTEN OUR PLANS ARE TURNED AROUND.
Whether you vote by proxy, or attend the annual meeting on Saturday, consider writing in "NO" along side of the candidates names on your ballot . There are three board openings and THREE CANDIDATES. Your board has positioned us to have no choice but to continue to live with their brand of administration. As to the amendments, consider voting "YES" for the amendment requiring an accountant. See the article immediately following this one. It will be posted in the next hour. The material posted is from a publication for non profits. As to the amendment restricting future boards, that probably violates our covenants, consider voting "NO". No matter what your Wedgefield political persuasion is, remember even Ms. Zieske noted in 2010, that she felt that similar restrictions violated our covenants (See immediate previous article for her own words.). Will your principles determine your vote?
(1) DO MEMBERS OF THIS CURRENT COHESIVE BOARD SUPPORT THE POTENTIAL ILLEGAL MOVES OF SOME ON THIS BOARD TO KEEP THEIR PET PROJECTS COMING?
In order to address the question we only need to look at the history of what actually occurred at WPA meetings since last January. At the same time if you follow the facts, are honest with yourself in evaluating what actually occurred, you would have to write in a big "NO" on each of the candidates offered on the ballot this year and hope that the rumors (brought about by one of the board members himself) about resigning after the first of the year, are true.
If we start reviewing the WPA meetings, the first item up is the replacement of the old dock at the landing. Current board member, Garrison stated clearly at the board table, that it was not to end up in our back yard - the canals. In the end the Water Amenities Committee pulled it into the canals and for at least three months we watched Garrison (played out with him as sole player) play good cop - bad cop. During good cop meetings he wanted that dock out of the canals because the committee had gone against the vote of the board. Had you been there you would have been proud of him. If you have been a follower of this good cop-bad cop behavior over the last three or four years, you knew when the bad cop might surface and how it would end. You see the bad cop part turns a blind eye and let's whatever is on the board table - contrary to what the good cop said, slide by. This particular drama ended with no final report to the residents after the dock was finally moved out, the silent sanctioning by every member of this board but one, and the renegade Water Amenities Committee throwing McBride off their committee - the only board member who questioned the inappropriate violation by a committee, of a legal motion of the board. While the whole board is at fault for remaining silent, Garrison as a board member, as legal chair, and President Walton, blatantly violated ethics, at the board table. Both are running (?????? - no other candidates presented) for board along with Keith Johnson, who served on the very Water Amenities Committee that not only voted the questioning board member - McBride, off the committee, but should have been aware that it didn't end there. Members of this committee then worked to exclude McBride in private clubs and social circles outside of the board table. Consider writing "NO" next to each of their names. Send a message to this board.
This year's meetings brought the DeMarchi development of "the accounting function". Garrison and DeMarchi played dictionary games as to whether the individual was an accountant, or not, when asked by McBride. Finally, McBride got the answer from the contractor. We are left with DeMarchi and two bookkeepers. According to DeMarchi he knows exactly what needs to be done. DeMarchi has changed, changed, and changed again, the reports to residents. He has never, nor has the rest of the board, disclosed how much the "accounting function" is costing you. He just has unfavorable comments regarding CPAs. Candidate Garrison added to the negative comments regarding accountants as he gave UNBIASED??????? - (biased) information regarding the amendment calling for a professional to do our books. This occurred during the same meeting that DeMarchi thanked Ms. Zieske for providing financial records that weren't in the office. Think again, about your vote, and write "NO" to Garrison who has failed to handle his board responsibilities in an open, unbiased, legal manner. Vote "NO" for President Walton, who condones, at times outright supports this behavior, with his silence.
We've seen conflict of interest. There is no other way to put it. The WPA President will contract his company to fix the gatehouse. DeMarchi played a key role in this adventure. Since he isn't on the ballot, we have to live with him (Previously he did tell certain people, he would resign after the election. Can we hope he'll stick to his word?), but Walton stands up like a SORE THUMB in this administration escapade. He is supported by candidate, Garrison, who ran questioning around the verbal flag pole, that appeared to be done with intent to make the questioning board member look bad. That is hard to do because conflict of interest is easily understood by all.
We don't have a lot of time. Our voting deadlines are near. There are at least a dozen more examples similar to these that could be viewed as "not in the best interests of Wedgefield", failure to comply to sound business and solid non profit administration, and quite frankly a play against truth and OPEN, honest governance. Who is our compliance committee chair? Our treasurer! Thank candidate Walton for that appointment. What a mess!
We aren't going to cover the topic about whether our PRESIDENT will ensure the necessary steps to make sure that Garrison//Concerned Citizen amendment is not in conflict with our covenants. The limited subjects posted above already indicate that he'll do what it takes to keep a board seat with his cohorts in poor administration.
What can you do? Write "NO" by each of the candidates names. Listen to Ms. Zieske's advice regarding the amendment restricting the power of the board and probably conflicting with our covenants. Attend the meeting and WRITE IN ADDITIONAL CANDIDATES. Your board had three slots and they only provided you three candidates. They are restricting the power of your vote - choice, to keep what they call their "cohesive board". Unfortunately, if you look at the examples throughout this year alone it might be said that they are operating under ORCHESTRATED DECEIT.
Whether you vote by proxy, or attend the annual meeting on Saturday, consider writing in "NO" along side of the candidates names on your ballot . There are three board openings and THREE CANDIDATES. Your board has positioned us to have no choice but to continue to live with their brand of administration. As to the amendments, consider voting "YES" for the amendment requiring an accountant. See the article immediately following this one. It will be posted in the next hour. The material posted is from a publication for non profits. As to the amendment restricting future boards, that probably violates our covenants, consider voting "NO". No matter what your Wedgefield political persuasion is, remember even Ms. Zieske noted in 2010, that she felt that similar restrictions violated our covenants (See immediate previous article for her own words.). Will your principles determine your vote?
(1) DO MEMBERS OF THIS CURRENT COHESIVE BOARD SUPPORT THE POTENTIAL ILLEGAL MOVES OF SOME ON THIS BOARD TO KEEP THEIR PET PROJECTS COMING?
In order to address the question we only need to look at the history of what actually occurred at WPA meetings since last January. At the same time if you follow the facts, are honest with yourself in evaluating what actually occurred, you would have to write in a big "NO" on each of the candidates offered on the ballot this year and hope that the rumors (brought about by one of the board members himself) about resigning after the first of the year, are true.
If we start reviewing the WPA meetings, the first item up is the replacement of the old dock at the landing. Current board member, Garrison stated clearly at the board table, that it was not to end up in our back yard - the canals. In the end the Water Amenities Committee pulled it into the canals and for at least three months we watched Garrison (played out with him as sole player) play good cop - bad cop. During good cop meetings he wanted that dock out of the canals because the committee had gone against the vote of the board. Had you been there you would have been proud of him. If you have been a follower of this good cop-bad cop behavior over the last three or four years, you knew when the bad cop might surface and how it would end. You see the bad cop part turns a blind eye and let's whatever is on the board table - contrary to what the good cop said, slide by. This particular drama ended with no final report to the residents after the dock was finally moved out, the silent sanctioning by every member of this board but one, and the renegade Water Amenities Committee throwing McBride off their committee - the only board member who questioned the inappropriate violation by a committee, of a legal motion of the board. While the whole board is at fault for remaining silent, Garrison as a board member, as legal chair, and President Walton, blatantly violated ethics, at the board table. Both are running (?????? - no other candidates presented) for board along with Keith Johnson, who served on the very Water Amenities Committee that not only voted the questioning board member - McBride, off the committee, but should have been aware that it didn't end there. Members of this committee then worked to exclude McBride in private clubs and social circles outside of the board table. Consider writing "NO" next to each of their names. Send a message to this board.
This year's meetings brought the DeMarchi development of "the accounting function". Garrison and DeMarchi played dictionary games as to whether the individual was an accountant, or not, when asked by McBride. Finally, McBride got the answer from the contractor. We are left with DeMarchi and two bookkeepers. According to DeMarchi he knows exactly what needs to be done. DeMarchi has changed, changed, and changed again, the reports to residents. He has never, nor has the rest of the board, disclosed how much the "accounting function" is costing you. He just has unfavorable comments regarding CPAs. Candidate Garrison added to the negative comments regarding accountants as he gave UNBIASED??????? - (biased) information regarding the amendment calling for a professional to do our books. This occurred during the same meeting that DeMarchi thanked Ms. Zieske for providing financial records that weren't in the office. Think again, about your vote, and write "NO" to Garrison who has failed to handle his board responsibilities in an open, unbiased, legal manner. Vote "NO" for President Walton, who condones, at times outright supports this behavior, with his silence.
We've seen conflict of interest. There is no other way to put it. The WPA President will contract his company to fix the gatehouse. DeMarchi played a key role in this adventure. Since he isn't on the ballot, we have to live with him (Previously he did tell certain people, he would resign after the election. Can we hope he'll stick to his word?), but Walton stands up like a SORE THUMB in this administration escapade. He is supported by candidate, Garrison, who ran questioning around the verbal flag pole, that appeared to be done with intent to make the questioning board member look bad. That is hard to do because conflict of interest is easily understood by all.
We don't have a lot of time. Our voting deadlines are near. There are at least a dozen more examples similar to these that could be viewed as "not in the best interests of Wedgefield", failure to comply to sound business and solid non profit administration, and quite frankly a play against truth and OPEN, honest governance. Who is our compliance committee chair? Our treasurer! Thank candidate Walton for that appointment. What a mess!
We aren't going to cover the topic about whether our PRESIDENT will ensure the necessary steps to make sure that Garrison//Concerned Citizen amendment is not in conflict with our covenants. The limited subjects posted above already indicate that he'll do what it takes to keep a board seat with his cohorts in poor administration.
What can you do? Write "NO" by each of the candidates names. Listen to Ms. Zieske's advice regarding the amendment restricting the power of the board and probably conflicting with our covenants. Attend the meeting and WRITE IN ADDITIONAL CANDIDATES. Your board had three slots and they only provided you three candidates. They are restricting the power of your vote - choice, to keep what they call their "cohesive board". Unfortunately, if you look at the examples throughout this year alone it might be said that they are operating under ORCHESTRATED DECEIT.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
AS PROMISED: DOES WEDGEFIELD'S TWISTED BY-LAW AMENDMENT HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF? DO MEMBERS OF THIS CURRENT COHESIVE BOARD SUPPORT THE POTENTIAL ILLEGAL MOVES OF SOME ON THIS BOARD TO KEEP THEIR PET PROJECTS COMING? WILL OUR PRESIDENT INVESTIGATE BY TAKING THE NECESSARY STEPS TO MAKE SURE THAT A PROPOSED BY-LAW CHANGE DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH OUR COVENANTS? WHAT IS THE TAINTED HISTORY OF THE CONCERNED CITIZENS IN A CHANGE THAT COULD CONFLICT WITH OUR COVENANTS?
DOES WEDGEFIELD'S TWISTED BY-LAW AMENDMENT HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF?
The Wedgefield Examiner has gone back in the history of proposed by-law changes and firmly believes that we are in another twisted period, possibly illegal period - again. Many of the players and moves remain the same. We only have to go back to the 2010 Annual Meeting. Then treasurer, Roger Armistead along with current board member Garrison, supported by the Concerned Citizens, put forth four by-law amendments. For a complete review of the amendments proposed in 2010, go to The Wedgefield Times, article #29, "Preview of Proposed WPA By-Law Amendments". Here are the first few lines of each of the Armistead/ Garrison/Concerned Citizen Amendments:
1. "Under no circumstance shall the Board of Directors incur any debt service or indenture to any lender, (etc.) public or private, without securing the approval of the membership of the Association by a referendum, executed at a duly called meeting of said membership......"
2. "The Board of Directors shall be prohibited from raising the annual assessment to property owners in any given year (defined by billing cycle for annual assessments) by more than 10% in any given year, or by more than 30% in any five consecutive year periods......"
3. "The Board of Directors shall authorize no expenditure in excess of $50,000 except for the following....."
4) "Reserve Fund Accounts shall be designated by specific category. A reserve study shall determine the required categories and the amounts of each category. No transfer of funds between or among fund categories shall be made, nor shall any category be deleted and funds assigned to that category be designated unallocated, unless approved by the membership......."
Briefly, the Armistead/Garrison/Concerned Citizen amendments restricted the ability of the board in spending our assessment dollars, as the current proposed amendment does. Many felt that they violated # 9 of the Covenants. At one point the 2010 board pulled the 4 amendments and after some battle, put them back on the ballot. Then, the board would not answer questions regarding violation of the Covenants. Residents also submitted 5 additional amendment changes. At least one of the resident amendments was pulled off the ballot by the 2010 board. At the same time the Concerned Citizens were holding meetings and sending letters endorsing a vote for the Armistead/Garrison/Concerned Citizen amendments. You might say, "well there were opinions on both sides." One of the key players in both the promotion of Concerned Citizen Candidates and the 4 amendments was Ms. Zieske. In the midst of all of this, prior to the annual meeting, she sent the following to approximately 50 Concerned Citizens, and Garrison, Wilson and Thomas.
Sent Sunday, October 17, 2010 @ 9:38 PM, Subject: Amendments to Our ByLaws (Quoted and typed as printed. Underlines added in key areas.): "Hey Guys: First of all, I am done trying to help these guys on this Board. I give up! They think they know it all, so be it. You will not hear from me again. I have no idea when we will get to court or how those issues will be resolved.
To my knowledge you cannot approve an amendment to our Bylaws that is in conflict with our Covenants. This has been supported by my research, but at any rate we need our attorney's opinion. I would really like the amendments that Roger and Bob Garrison approved, but not at the cost of violating our Covenants. If the legal committee approved the first four amendments provided on the ballot without legal counsel then they could be accused of "not acting in good faith". Everything I have been able to research is that the Covenants trump the Bylaws.
I have advised this Board to only put forward only one amendment that would allow for a Special Meeting to be held a few months from now to properly address these proposed changes. That would give them the time to get proper legal counsel. However, they ignored my advice and are going to put all of the nine on the ballot. Consequently, I am no longer in a position where I can promote their election to the Board.
I will not be sending out a letter to promote our slate. They will be defeated and you will end up with board members that are canal property owners or supporters. I am totally defeated. As ever, Carol"
The same person who then board member Armistead insisted on calling "advisor", was provided unfettered access to your records (Some of our records are missing now and DeMarchi thanks her for providing them.), is telling them that they are failing "to act in good faith" and may be violating our covenants. She tells the Concerned Citizens that Armistead and Garrison's amendments are a problem. So at times in the run up to the 2010 Annual Meeting they cut the resident by-law submissions and then put them back again, except one.
Here we are again with a submission that appears to be in violation of our Covenants and Garrison is telling us the attorney reviewed them. He probably did. Can you trust the opinion? The Concerned Citizen Board of 2010-11 - Wilson, Huggins, Barrier, Thomas, etc., lawyer shopped and through out board attorney of record - Moran for Moody, after Moran wrote an opinion stating the 2011 recall petitions were valid, as they were called under the same state law that allowed the Concerned Citizen recall of 2010.
Back to 2010, Ms. Zieske wasn't done yet. After standing on principle, she changes her mind and will support them, regardless. All ethics go out the door the following morning and she sends the following to the group noted above.
Mon, Oct 18, 2010 @ 11:20AM, "Subject: I was angry and upset"
"Hey Guys: Most of you do not know about the additional five amendments that their group put forward to be voted on. Those are terrible and should not even be approved by the Legal Committee to be included on the ballot. However, if our guys send out only the ones we want approved, then they will catch "hell" from that group. I was trying to get them to "buy us some time" to properly educate our membership on the ones we want passed and to get them to vote no on the ones that are terrible. I lost and I was angry. I have had two years of this stress and I "lost it".
So forget my prior email. I am still out there working hard to get our guys re-elected. We must get them elected! The other four people are all canal supporters. Carol"
Zieske's's letters were shared with current sitting board members. Some were amongst those she sent it to. Others received a copy through me. One of the apparent authors of the suspect amendments in 2010 according to Ms. Zieske herself, is our very own current legal chair, Garrison. What is he promoting now? Another suspicious amendment that appears to be in violation of our Covenants. McMillin, Garrison, Barrier, were all on the board when this was coming down. They've seen first hand just how far this group will go to get what they want. Is Garrison at it again? Where is your board? Many sitting at the board table today were provided this information.
Wednesday: Do Members Of This Current Cohesive Board Support The Potential Illegal Moves of Some On This Board To Keep Their Pet Projects Coming?
Monday, November 4, 2013
COMING TUESDAY EVENING: DOES WEDGEFIELD'S TWISTED BY-LAW AMENDMENT HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF? DO MEMBERS OF THIS CURRENT COHESIVE BOARD SUPPORT THE POTENTIAL ILLEGAL MOVES OF SOME ON THIS BOARD TO KEEP THEIR PET PROJECTS COMING? WILL OUR PRESIDENT INVESTIGATE BY TAKING THE NECESSARY STEPS TO MAKE SURE THAT A PROPOSED BY-LAW CHANGE DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH OUR COVENANTS? WHAT IS THE TAINTED HISTORY OF THE CONCERNED CITIZENS IN CHANGES THAT COULD CONFLICT WITH OUR COVENANTS?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)