THERE IS A SURPRISE BENEFIT TO HIRING real EXPERTS ON OUR CURRENT ROAD PROJECT - SAVINGS, ON TOP OF A QUALITY JOB.

The Wedgefield Examiner provides the following information to the best of my ability.  To confirm for yourself, listen to the tape of the WPA Annual Meeting on The Wedgefield Times, or the WPA website, when, and if, they make it available.  There haven't been any recordings posted on their website since July of 2015, and no minutes posted since June 2015 (The board's attempt at dumbing down the membership????)  Thank you Wedgefield Times for providing your recordings.  DON'T MISS THE P.S. AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ARTICLE.  I ALMOST FORGOT THE BEST PART OF THE STORY.

Anderson, Roads Chair, reported during the WPA Annual Meeting, that there was approximately $10,000 in savings on the current road project.  It seems that with professional contracted engineering oversight, that once the actual work began, that it was noted that some contracted process requirements could be eliminated, resulting in the savings, that will be applied to future additional road projects.

Anderson does a great job as Roads Chair.  He always brings his proposals to the table with a plan that includes professional contract engineering, professional development of request for proposal (specs, terms, etc.), professional review of bids & contract development, and professional contract work oversight.  He is the ONLY board member who does this.  The others claim expertise, their own, and savings, leaving us with a hodgepodge of paper trail (lack of documentation on bidding, contracting, etc.), and poor end result projects.  Additionally, some projects come to the board table several times, often with a change in the board person taking responsibility for the project.  Such was the case with the gate house (2 years, three bidding processes (?????) and McMillin & DeMarchi, each taking the helm at varying times), the Wedgefield Drainage Project (same two vying for the leadership role), and the pond project (same two at it again).  What is the common thread?  Each time, they are the self proclaimed experts, will save us money, have the best idea, and contractors, and the paper trail is a mess.  What else is common?  The declaration from the board table that they couldn't get three bidders, and no one wants to work in Wedgefield.  Surprisingly (NOT), when Anderson puts his project in the hands of professionals, we don't have these problems, or declarations, or change of board member in charge. In fact, we have solid management and great project results.

Remember the TV program, The $64,000 Question?  Well, here's a question, sometimes it is the $100,000+, the $20,000+, the $10,000+, etc, question.  Here it is - IF YOU ARE ANDERSON, WHY WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR HAND, AND VOTE YES, ON ANY PROJECT, PARTICULARLY LARGE SUM PROJECTS, WHEN THE BOARD MEMBER PRESENTING THE PROPOSED MOTION, HADN'T MET EVEN THE MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS, OF THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU CONDUCT YOUR PROJECTS, IN YOUR ROLE AS BOARD MEMBER, PROTECTING OUR ASSETS?

There is a second integrity question, $64,000+ question for the rest of the board, in fact two.  (1)  If you feel Anderson's project management requirements are sound, how is it that you don't apply them to your projects?  (2)  If you feel that you all are experts, don't need to go to the expense of professional services, even though not doing so defies what the experts who wrote the reserve study recommend in several places in the document - hire professional engineering, bid & contract development & oversight - WHY DO YOU VOTE YES ON THE ROAD PROJECTS?  There is NO integrity, or consistency, in this board's approach to sound governance (??????)!

Members, let yourself off the hook in one declaration from this board.  So many of these board members have declared that no one wants to work in Wedgefield, and that is why they can't get bidders.  It isn't you, or me.  It is this board's hap hazard way of doing business.  

P.S.  If the savings is approximately $10,000, and my notes are correct.  The money saved is about 2 times more, than the engineering and oversight services cost!

DECEMBER 7: HAS THIS BOARD HAD SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE BENEFITS OF HIRING real EXPERTS?

PART II, WPA 2015 ANNUAL MEETING - THE MYSTERY DEEPENS ON THE BEVERLY DOCUMENTS & THE RULINGS (???) ON THE LITIGATION REGARDING THE CANAL ASSESSMENTS

I've prepared the following information to the best of my ability.  To verify for yourself, please go to The Wedgefield Times (as soon as it is available), and listen to the tape of the WPA 2015 Annual Meeting, visit the WPA office, and ask to review the 2 Beverly documents, and read the article  ""No Real Title For This, Let's Just Call It Injustice, At The Hands of The WPA Board", published on this blog on November 5th. If you don't read the article, you won't be able to follow today's piece, and it is important.

We'll start with some questions that can't be answered, unless your board opens up, and handles the situation with honesty, integrity.  
*Is forgery on a official document a crime?
*If forgery is a crime, and it is committed against your association, should your board make the members aware, and follow it up with a proper OPEN investigation, and refer it to the proper authorities?
*Why would a board go quiet, under the board table, on litigation, where it appears forgery took place, when the issue contained in the litigation, has rocked, and shredded our community twice?
*Why haven't you been following this board's actions, researching for yourself, and calling members of this board on their actions?

Here we go!  During the annual meeting, where we are advised that this is the one time during the year that we can participate, DURING the meeting,  people asked various questions from the floor, respectfully raising their hands, waiting for acknowledgement from the board table, giving their name and address, and presenting their question, or information, and getting feed back from the board.  I did all of the above.  One of my comments/questions related to the Beverly documents, requesting answers as to why the membership was not kept informed.  

I explained that I had reviewed the two documents.  It appears that the first order reviewed involves two members – A&B, who refused to pay their canal related assessments.  The order is dated 6/25/2013, signed by HAL L. BEVERLY, SPECIAL REFEREE OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT, MYRTLE BEACH, S.C.  This litigation revolves around both of the types of canal dredging assessment – the $175.00/yr. every member paid, and the $5,000 Individual Assessment that all canal lot owners, were assessed.  From my reading, and understanding, which I verified by a question to a credible (to remain unidentified) person, the WPA had won, and both types of assessments were legal, and owed by both member/defendants – A&B, along with penalties, and assorted legal fees.  It appears, one member paid.  We’ll call him A.  That leaves us with the “last man standing”, member “B”

During the annual meeting, I asked why we had to go, almost a year and a half later, and get a second ruling, from the SAME referee (both sides of the litigation have to pay the referee), when we had won?  At one point in my questioning, our Legal Chair, said something about not wanting to talk about it.  I said, we had a right to know.  It was explained that Hal L. Beverly, had NEVER SIGNED the document.  I reviewed the document.  His name is typed in, and the signature is in ink, and this document came from the WPA legal file.  Who gave the board the document? Who DID sign the document?  Who told the board it wasn't Beverly's signature?  When was the board informed?  Why  did this board vote in October of 2014 to go back and pay Beverly, again, for a new order, reversing half of the old order?  Why didn't your board notify the membership, and the solicitor, and the authorities, that they had a forged signature, on a document that was intended to serve as a legal decision, on an issue that has torn this community apart with each dredging?  Why didn't the board give resident "A", his money back, when they knew they had pressured the member, with a false ruling?

Where are you?  Why are you allowing this corrupt, blind eye, governance of our community?

THE WPA ANNUAL MEETING, PART I

PLEASE NOTE:  Before we begin, please don't miss the very end of the article.  An officer of the board attempted to shut down my member comments, during this meeting, the only meeting of the year, that members may speak.

I attended the WPA Annual Meeting, held on November 21, 2015 (today).  I will present what occurred to the best of my ability, over the next few articles.  Please go to The Wedgefield Times, when the tape is available, to verify information for yourself.  Today, we'll provide a few highlights.

*214 members voted.
*197 of those who voted, voted by proxy.
*17 of those who voted were walk ins.

*The uncontested board members who ran for another term (3), received the following # of votes:

     - Anderson 172
     - DeMarchi 168
     - John Walton 166
We have no explanation of how 214 people voted in this uncontested election, and how these 3 candidates got less than 214.  This is not an accusation of error.  A few individuals received votes as write in candidates.  I received 30 + unsolicited votes.  Some wrote "no", by the candidate names.

*The following By-Law Amendment passed, receiving 158 yes votes.  "The Treasurer shall have custody of all property of the Association including funds, securites and evidence of indebtedness.  He/she shall along with Board contract the services of a Certified Public Accountant to keep the books of the Association in accordance with good accounting practices and shall perform other duties incident to the Office of Treasurer as may be required by the Board." 

We'll see what this inhouse accounting board does with this.  I'm sure there will be more to come on this subject.

*The following Covenant change failed.  "IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that the conditions, restrictions and limitations are made solely for the benefit of the grantor and grantee herein, and may be changed by a 60% vote of eligible voters (total of all members in good standing) at an annual meeting at which a quorum is present.  Voting may be done in person, by proxy, or by mail-in ballot."  This is what I've said about this in the past, and I stand by it.  "As I stated before, you should all be very concerned about what your board is about to pull off here.  It has taken quite sometime for our Legal Chair to get us to this point, but he and his support group (Concerned Citizens), backed by the blind eye our President (He appoints board chairs.), and the balance of this board - don't question each other, so we can get our pet projects approved, our vote on this issue doesn't count.  You can vote, not vote, and it won't make a difference.  Currently, it takes 100% of the membership to vote, in order to change the corner stone of our governing documents - the covenants.  This is a safe guard intended to keep boards from going after the promises of our property deeds, etc. - the promise of Wedgefield, as a development, to the buyer.  Our Legal Chair has stated that the WPA lawyer, reviewed, and approved this.  Don't make me take the treacherous trip down this President, and Legal Chair's lawyer shopping.  Go back and read the articles on the blog, listen to the tapes of the meetings, etc.  Why would anyone trust this board to under take this, and work to break the promises intended with our property purchases?  Do what you will, I voted NO, NO, NO, on principle, but it is too late to do anything about it, THE BOARD WINS WHETHER YOU VOTE, OR NOT. "

* The Secretary of the WPA Board attempted to silence a member in good standing - me, during the meeting.  Our WPA President. and at least two other board members, reminded the membership more than once, that this is the one meeting a year, that members have the opportunity to speak throughout the meeting.  I, all the others present, and your board sat quietly while the spouse of our WPA Treasurer, spoke on several items, as is her right as a member in good standing.  I raised my hand, waited to be acknowledged, as is appropriate, and spoke on 3 items.  One of the items was the conflicting legal orders signed by Beverly (See article titled, "No Real Title For This, Let's Just Call It Injustice, At The Hands of The WPA Board", published on this blog on November 5th.  I won't go into the discussion at this point, but part way through my questions, and response to answers from our Legal Chair, our Board Secretary said, "THIS IS A WASTE OF OUR TIME".  I reminded her that I had a right to speak.  The P.S. to this is that our Board Secretary had plenty of time to listen to our Board Treasurer's spouse.  Please note, NOTHING AGAINST THE BOARD TREASURER'S SPOUSE SPEAKING, ON MY PART.

Stay tuned!

NOVEMBER MARKS AN ANNIVERSARY, AND A NEW HIGH IN VISITS TO THE BLOG!

November 2015 marks The Wedgefield Examiner's 4th anniversary!  At the same time, The Wedgefield Examiner has reached 50,000 visits to the blog.  How long will it continue?  Until we have open honest governance, with a board that works in the best interests of Wedgefield Plantation.

IT IS PROXY TIME! THEY ARE DUE ON THE 16TH

The above sign says it all for me as I fill out my WPA Annual Meeting proxy.  Has your WPA board sent you a legal proxy, as required by our governing documents?  Yes, technically.  The problem????  This document represents the leathergy, cover ups, poor voting from the board table, and the lack of serving in the best interests of Wedgefield Plantation, and the members.  I have to work with what I've been presented, but I will continue under principles - mine, as I fill it out.

There is no real vote for board seats.  There are three seats available, and three current board members who will fill them again, uncontested.  No one else was willing to step forward.  That's the atmosphere these three have created, condoned, and furthered.  There is no one left to challenge them, because these three, and the balance of your board, abused anyone who sat at that board table, and legitimately questioned any one of them, or their projects.  Who would sign up for that abuse?  These three all got a big NO by their names.  My principles wouldn't allow me to vote any other way.
Candidates:  Anderson, DeMarchi, John Walton - NO, NO, NO!

The By-Law change is presented below, in quotation.  This has been presented for the third year.  Our Legal Chair, did have a chuckle about that at a recent meeting.  Personally, I thank the resident for their perseverance, and for standing by their principles!  We need this, and once again for the third year, I vote YES, YES, YES!
"The Treasurer shall have custody of all property of the Association including funds, securites and evidence of indebtedness.  He/she shall along with Board contract the services of a Certified Public Accountant to keep the books of the Association in accordance with good accounting practices and shall perform other duties incident to the Office of Treasurer as may be required by the Board."

The COVENANT change is presented below.  As I stated before, you should all be very concerned about what your board is about to pull off here.  It has taken quite sometime for our Legal Chair to get us to this point, but he and his support group (Concerned Citizens), backed by the blind eye our President (He appoints board chairs.), and the balance of this board - don't question each other, so we can get our pet projects approved, our vote on this issue doesn't count.  You can vote, not vote, and it won't make a difference.  Currently, it takes 100% of the membership to vote, in order to change the corner stone of our governing documents - the covenants.  This is a safe guard intended to keep boards from going after the promises of our property deeds, etc. - the promise of Wedgefield, as a development, to the buyer.  Our Legal Chair has stated that the WPA lawyer, reviewed, and approved this.  Don't make me take the treacherous trip down this President, and Legal Chair's lawyer shopping.  Go back and read the articles on the blog, listen to the tapes of the meetings, etc.  Why would anyone trust this board to under take this, and work to break the promises intended with our property purchases?  Do what you will, I voted NO, NO, NO, on principle, but it is too late to do anything about it, THE BOARD WINS WHETHER YOU VOTE, OR NOT. "IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that the conditions, restrictions and limitations are made solely for the benefit of the grantor and grantee herein, and may be changed by a 60% vote of eligible voters (total of all members in good standing) at an annual meeting at which a quorum is present.  Voting may be done in person, by proxy, or by mail-in ballot."

WPA CORRESPONDENCE FILE REVIEW SUBSTANTIATES INCREASING NUMBER OF CONCERNS REGARDING THE BOARD'S LACK OF ENFORCING PROPERTY MAINTENANCE

When I visited the WPA office on November 5, I reviewed the Correspondence File.  Quite frankly, in at least one respect, I was pleased to see that other residents had written the board about some of the deplorable property maintenance conditions here in Wedgefield, which could appear to be sanctified, or intentionally ignored by your board.  I have written several articles, sent pictures to the board, spoken during resident comments during board meetings, brought it up at the 2014 annual meeting, and received half baked answers, twisting the words of our governing documents.  Tractors, boats, inappropriate signs, burning pots, items left on vacant lots, etc., for the most part have been ignored for months.  In at least two of the cases, the offenders were board members.

The conditions allowed on unbuilt lots, adjacent to homes, is deplorable.  Our Grounds Chair, under the approval of the board, has written contracts between the WPA, and individual lot owners, to provide mowing services.  In the past, the board has used our assessment dollars to supplement the cost for the lot owner.  This year, it appears to keep the cost low for lot owners, the Grounds Chair, wrote the contracts for a maximum of 4 mowings, over the long SC growing season.  When I complained about the conditions on two lots on John Green, with weeds up to my waist, and above, the Grounds Chair said that it was early in the growing season, and those lots had already been mowed twice,  which left only two more mowings for the rest of the season.  Think I was exaggerating?  No, there is a letter in the file from a resident, who stated the lot adjacent to their property, had grown to 5 feet!!!!!!

Here are the streets mentioned in the letters:  Patriot Ct., John Waities Ct., John Green (not my letter), King George, and a second letter regarding excessive clutter & boats on John Green.

Write the board about your concerns.  Write the Grounds Chair, and ask him how the board would like it if you mowed your lawn 4 times in the growing season, and let the yard reach 5 feet tall.

You ought to be nervous if you love your home.  Your board has played, and played some more with the Policy Manual, interpretation of By-Laws, hired a long line of inept lawyers to provide opinions - called those opinions legal & ethical - promptly fired at least 3 of these fine attorneys, and now through a devious plan will begin work on the Covenants.  This isn't the Wedgefield I bought into in 2004.

NO REAL TITLE FOR THIS, LET'S JUST CALL IT INJUSTICE, AT THE HANDS OF THE WPA BOARD

BEFORE YOU BEGIN TO READ, PLEASE NOTE THAT IT MAY BE A LITTLE MESSY, I'M FED UP.

The Wedgefield Examiner, provides the following information to the best of my ability, from review of records, and my notes, taken during a scheduled visit at the WPA.  While the law covering records review, provided the ability to have copies of requested documents, I did not request copies, as my board, your board, have denied them in the past.  To confirm the detail provided below, I suggest that you write the board, and request a date and time to review The orders -2, signed by Referee Beverly, in 2013 and 2014, regarding the litigation, against the canal lot owner who refused to pay the dredging assessments.

I visited the office today at the scheduled time, and was provided most of the detail that I had requested.  I’d like to thank Board Member Cline, for her efforts in gathering the documents, and arranging for a comfortable place to review, at what has to be a very busy time.  In this article, I will focus on two documents in particular, two orders, signed by Chip & Hal Beverly.  The orders focus on the litigation of members, at times one, at another two, who failed to pay their canal related dredging assessments.  Both live on the canals, and to protect their rightful privacy, will be titled A & B members.

It should be noted that these cases have been hanging, almost since the beginning of the dredging, which took place in 2010.  Details of which each owed, is insignificant to this particular article.  It appears to me, to become and issue of principle, sound judgment, and open honest governance.

I am not a lawyer, so bear with me.  It appears that the first order reviewed involves two members – A&B, who refused to pay their canal related assessments.  The order is dated 6/25/2013, signed by HAL L. BEVERLY, SPECIAL REFEREE OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT, MYRTLE BEACH, S.C.  This litigation revolves around both of the types of canal dredging assessment – the $175.00/yr. every member paid, and the $5,000 Individual Assessment that all canal lot owners, were assessed.  Since I don’t have copies, I’ll use significant quotes from the document, that give relevance to both types of assessment.  Quotes will be provided in black, underlined, and be placed with quotation marks.

“Therefore, I find that the plaintiff acted with proper authority when it maintained and assessed the canal assessments”

#13 of the order.  “Regarding the assessment of fees, section 3331-302 (15) of the South Carolina Code (2006) states in Part, “(E) every corporation has…the same powers as an individual…to do all things necessary or convenient to carry out it’s affairs including without limitation, power…to impose dews, assessments, and admission and transfer fees upon it member… “The Covenants and By-laws of the Plaintiff run with the land and are binding upon all persons, firms, and corporations owning any interest in the lands within Wedgefield Plantation Association.  The language of Article IV of the By-laws, particularly Sections 2 and 4 give the Plaintiff wide discretion in levying Individual Assessments and using the Individual Assessments. For the payment of common area maintenance expenses of the subdivision and for any other purposes necessary or desireable in the opinion of the board of directors for the general benefit of the subdivision.”

#11 “The Master Deed and By-laws, together provide among other things that 1) The owner of each lot shall be personally liable to the Assoc.  for the payment of all regular and individual assessments levied by the Association and shall be personally liable for interest.”

From my reading, and understanding, which I verified by a question to a credible (to remain unidentified) person, the WPA had won, and both types of assessments were legal, and owed by both member/defendants – A&B, along with penalties, and assorted legal fees.  It appears, one member paid.  We’ll call him A.  That leaves us with the “last man standing”, member “B”

Go back to my letter to the board.  I requested documents that would have showed me what was happening after order one, and before order two.  They weren’t provided.  I asked for all related invoices, defendant lawyer, or member correspondence, etc.  They might have provided insight to the road traveled.  We can’t rely on the minutes of meetings, in my humble opinion they have been sanitized.  I attend most board meetings, and for the most part, little to nothing was said from the board table, between the two orders.  The next order relative to this case, is signed almost a year and a half later, and reverses the decision regarding Individual Assessment - $5,000 to canal lot owners, only.

The second order is signed on October 30, 2014, by CHIP Beverly, Special Referee  Since I don’t have copies, I’ll use significant quotes from the document, that give relevance to both types of assessment.  Quotes will be provided in black, underlined, and be placed with quotation marks.

“CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A.   VALIDITY OF THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT INCREASE  I find that the Board of Directors’ decision to levy an annual assessment increase is an intra vires act and the purpose for the increase (canal dredging) is within the sound business judgment of the Board.  It is reasonable for the Board to construe canal dredging  as a preservation of property values, safety, and aesthetic appeal of the subdivision.  It matters not that the canals are not Association common area property because the dredging could still be construed as a benefit to the association at large.  WPA is entitled to judgment and foreclosure against the Defendants in the annual assessment Increase, reasonable attorney’s fees, costs of collection, and interest.

B.   Validity of the five thousand dollar Individual Assessment The association is bound to follow the covenants and its own bylaws.  Seabrook Island Prop. Owners Ass’n V. Pellzer, 292 S.C. 343, 348, 356 S.E. 2d 411, 414 (S.C. Ct. App. 1987) (reversing judgment against a homeowner for non payment of assessments on the basis that the association had no authority to levy flat fee annual maintenance charges where the governing documents required charges to be based on property values).

In addition to Annual assessments, the By-laws for WPA provide that individual assessments may be levied by the Board.  These relate to architectural review fees, lot maintenance, or any costs incurred, by the Association, in an effort to keep lots up to standards set in these By-laws and in the deed “Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions.  The Restrictions themselves do not mention individual assessments.

The strict parameters for which an individual assessment may be levied indicate that the board was without express authority to levy individual assessments for the purpose of canal dredging.  Individual Assessments are limited to costs for keeping up lots.  Clearly the canals are not within the bounds of individual lots.  As it relates to the Individual Assessment of Five Thousand Dollars, I find for the Defendants.”

After I took my notes, and went home, I sat and reviewed my notes.  I am still left wondering about too many things.  First, notice Chip & Hal Beverly.  I assumed two people, maybe in a partnership.  I asked myself why our board after the first order, would go back and pay again.  They had won!  Both assessments stood.  I went to the computer and looked for Hal & Chip Beverly.  It isn’t two people.  Hal’s nick name is Chip.  What would cause a board to go back to the same person, who gave an opinion, justified it, and they won, who is now writing a new opinion on Individual Assessment, and they lose a large part?  My only thought is that someone, or more, who moves the board HERD around, convinced them, that they had to do it. 

There is a larger HERD, led by some on this board, - members, enough of them, that we have such apathy, that we don’t question, we don’t go review documents, we take half truths, reports from the board table that have little or no information – long absences with no updates, and let it be. 

One of the two members sued, paid the $5,000.  One was robbed because he believed he had to, or lose his home.  It could appear, that the second, had contacts on the board, and was involved with their Agenda.  If this one didn’t have to pay, why did the other, and what about the 78 other canal lot owners who paid.  I forget myself.  When word got out that one didn’t have to pay, and some of us asked for our money back , it was stated that the time had run out for us.  No one, would answer as to what law, etc.  This board answers to no one, just dances to the music of their own hidden agenda.  I believe that we deserve answers to just exactly how the second ruling was allowed to happen.  Garrison & DeMarchi, during a board meeting  October 2014,  with little or no information provided, kept calling Beverly a judge, like a judge, the power of a judge, when actually he was a referee, who each side would have had to pay him his fees.  No judge calls for a board to vote, on an outcome!  We were paying this judge?????, for a second time to violate his first ruling.  This should have gone to court if the member & his lawyer wouldn’t pay, after the first settlement. 

Before I finish, I should note that Beverly died.  I’ve nothing against him.  I resent this board’s denials of fact by hiding information that should be available under the law, failing to offer full – if any information at meetings, and individual board members who sit by raise their hands and vote yes, either without demanding information, or turning a blind eye to the great deviance of the actions of this board,, that robs us of good, sound, fair governance.

Write the board, and ask to see these documents, ask where all the documents are?  Ask individual board members how they could have voted for this second go around, with a REFEREE that wrote the first one, and was about to turn the first order up side down..

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER APOLOGIZES TO THE BOARD

Never let it be said, that the Wedgefield Examiner won't own up to a mistake.  This morning I reported that I hadn't received word from the board, regarding my requested appointment to review records on 11/5/15.  As I worked cleaning up my email files, I found the following email from the board.  WPA Board, I apologize, publicly, here, and now.

Before I publish the letter below, never let it be said that I'm not skeptical, about this response.  I've received this type of letter before, advising me that the requested records were available for review.  When I arrived at the office for the review, along with my listed request, and most records listed weren't made available, I was advised by the paid staff, that those provided, were all that the board allowed her to provide.  STAY TUNED.

HERE IS THE LETTER FROM THE BOARD:

October 27th 2015

Dear Mrs. Claveloux,

I am in receipt of your letter requesting to view the legal and correspondence files.You are always welcome to review the correspondese file at any time. The legal files you request may also be viewed at this time.

As Community Liaison I will admit that I have on a couple of occasions overlooked a letter or two during the almost three years I have been doing this. It has always been nothing more than an unintentional oversight. I try very hard to answer everyone as quickly as possible and will continue to do so in the future.

Regarding your last paragraph, I am sure Mrs. Cline will see to it that your packet is delivered to your home address in time for the meeting.

Thank you for your concern,

Adam Anderson

Community Liaison

WILL THE WPA BOARD ALLOW ME TO REVIEW THE RECORDS I ASKED TO REVIEW?

On October 27th, I emailed the WPA Board, return receipt requested, requesting to visit the office on November 5th at 11:00AM, to review the correspondence file, and files associated with the litigation regarding the canal lot owner, who refused to pay the canal dredging related assessments.   I requested the review of records according to SC Title 33, Article 16, Case of Law, sent to me by Board Member DeMarchi, via email, on 06/05/13 (Copy of email retained in my files, and presented in the past, on the blog.) I received the appropriate return receipt message, within a couple of hours.

Tomorrow, is the day requested.  I've requested under the very law presented to me, by Board Member DeMarchi, and have not received a response.  Will your board follow the very law they imposed on me?  Will they have the decency to respond within a reasonable time frame, to the request?  We'll see.  Stay tuned!

A CONTRACTOR VOICE FROM THE PAST WRITES THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER. WE ARE NOT SURE WHY, BECAUSE THIS CONTRACTOR HASN'T BEEN MENTIONED IN YEARS!

HERE IS THE EMAIL:

Donnice Blakely 

To

wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com

Oct 25 at 8:43 PM

I have no desire to ever work for or in wedge field plantation again. And yes i read the 

wedge field examiner. Imagine that.  Blakelys Repair Service Charleston S.C. 

(stonger than ever)

THE WPA OCTOBER BOARD MEETING, PART II - MORE LEGAL???? WHAT WASN'T SAID LEFT ME ASKING WHETHER WE MIGHT END UP WITH A PORT-A-POT ON EVERY VACANT LOT

The Wedgefield Examiner, provides the following information, to the best of my ability, after listening to the tape of the WPA October Board Meeting, at The Wedgefield Times.  The WPA has not provided meeting tapes at their own website for the last 3-4 months.  Please listen to the tape yourself, to verify the information.


As stated in Part I of the October WPA Board Meeting, the Legal Report was brief, and lacked complete information.  We are approaching the Annual Meeting.  As usual, residents have the opportunity to propose by-law changes, and if reviewed for legality, and they meet that standard, they can be placed on the ballot for a vote by the membership.  In the past, after the by-law changes were submitted for consideration, we were informed how many had been submitted, their content, and if they didn't meet the legality standard, we were informed why, usually during the Legal Report, during a board meeting.


This year, during the August Board Meeting, we were advised that there were 2 by-law submissions presented for consideration. One requiring the board hire a CPA to oversee our bookkeeping, suffered some humor from the board table, because it has met the legality check, but been presented, more than one time.  It should be noted that there is nothing in the governing documents that prohibit repeated submission of the same by-law change to a vote of the membership.  


The second by-law submission required a vote of the membership for another canal dredging to take place.


At the September Board Meeting, Legal Chair Garrison, stated that the board attorney had not provided his legal opinion on the by-law submissions.


During the October meeting, he simply stated that there would only be one by-law change to vote on.  More important, is why like previous years, we have not been presented the information - legal opinion, as to why one of them, won't be voted on.  Slip of mind by our Legal Chair?  I don't think so.  Go back to the October edition of the WRAGG, and our Legal Chair/Vice President provides a lengthy article about the annual meeting and voting.  He just states that there will be one by-law amendment to vote on.  He does spend a lot of time discussing the proposed COVENANT change.  Leave that alone for a moment, and ask yourself why it might be important that we have the information on the legal opinion, as to why one of the by-law changes won't be placed on the ballot.


It is important for consistency.  We've been informed in the past.  We lack consistency in the presentation of pertinent fact, on too many levels with this board.  Additionally, when a resident follows procedure, puts themselves out, and submits a change they feel should be considered, they deserve open legal opinion, as to why it won't be presented.  We, as members deserve to know what in the legal governing documents, prevented a fellow member from being heard.  It may help us develop our own recommendations for change, and consideration of a vote by the membership.

  


As to the COVENANT vote, after the behavior on so many levels, of this board, and others, I fear for our association and the power this change will bring.  The COVENANTS protect us.  The fact that it would take a 100% vote to change them, has kept freewheeling boards from doing further damage to our by-laws, and policy.  While our Legal Chair didn't have the time to address the reasons the second by-law amendment won't be voted on, he had plenty to say about the COVENANT change in the WRAGG.

"There are two items on the ballot this year.  One is a proposed by law change, the other is a proposed COVENANT change.  Currently, covenants can only be amended by a 100% vote of the membership, and inherently impossible requirement imposed by the original developer of Wedgefield to ensure that he (the developer) maintained total control over the plantation.  This antiquated requirement needs to be changed in order to allow the members of the WPA to govern themselves in a more pro-active manner.  If a 100% vote (that would be 576 yes votes) is impossible, why are we bothering to place this on the ballot?  Answer:  Simply to prove the point.  The board knows this will not pass, but in order to obtain a court ruling (by declaratory judgment) to change, this we need to establish that an attempt has been made to do so.  ONCE THIS IS DONE, WE will be in a position to petition the court to change this requirement to a more achievable number.  IF AND WHEN THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED, THEN THE WPA WILL BE IN A POSITION TO CHANGE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE COVENANTS TO REFLECT MORE ACCURATELY THE NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSOCIATION."


The WE, is nine board members who have operated inconsistently, and until now, couldn't change the covenants, and gather their individual short sighted, tainted constituency, to ram through what they want with an annual meeting vote.  We all ought to be afraid of what is next.  Up until now, this is the one portion of our governing documents, a board and their constituency, couldn't touch.  The 100% requirement insured that protection.   I have difficulty allowing this board to manipulate this critical corner stone of our governing documents.  They already do enough harm through the policy manual, and by-laws.  They ignore, and fail to live according to the covenants as they are currently written.

We'll consider something simple.  Last year, during the annual meeting, a resident asked the board about the burning policy published by the board, which stated “NO BURNING, NO EXCEPTIONS”.  I stated that a board member, on my street was burning in a big ugly pot, which was left on his vacant lot, with other equipment for weeks.  Board member, Cline stated, from the board table, that that nothing could be left standing on vacant lots (covenant).  The offending board member stated that he had been busy.  Nothing was removed from his vacant lot, so several weeks later, I wrote the board with pictures of the mess.  In a letter to me dated 12/7/14,Legal Chair Garrison wrote, “I see no violation of “burning pots” as they are clearly not stored per your letter, but rather have been in use.  In any event, defining what shall be allowable relative to burning related to Covenant #7 is as you know under review by the board.  I will tell you that I believe the proposed change now having had first reading is insufficient in definition and allowance will be reviewed restructured, and that the present policy change up for second reading in December be rejected. If the boat and trailer are indeed on the vacant (as in unbuilt) lot it does indeed need to be moved in accordance with Section V-2-2.03 and the property owner will be notified.”

We won’t spend much time on the discussion of this particular incident, but it is an example of how this board will play hide and seek to please each other’s agenda, at the expense of our governing documents.  In this case, your board, during resident questioning, at an annual meeting, gave a pass to a board member who ignored “NO BURNING, NO EXCEPTIONS”, ignored a fellow board member, who stated from the board table that nothing could be left on a vacant lot, and our Legal Chair ignored his own writing (and the pictures presented by a resident of the boat & trailer) that referred to a covenant.  What has happened on that board member’s unbuilt lot, is that the pot, chairs, swing, etc. has sat for a full year, often for months, unused.  The board in their turning a blind eye to the covenants, has given wings to the deviant vacant lot owner/board member.  He has since added a flagpole, a sign that says “MYRTLE MANOR #1, ROAD KILL COOKOUT FRIDAY NITE, YEE-HAW!”, and taken dock debris found floating in the river, and stacked it there (been there at least 6 months).

I would assume, that you bought property in an HOA for the protection provided to property maintenance standards, expressed in the covenants, and governing documents, and expected appropriate enforcement.  This board, in this incident, and so many others, continue to ignore, beat around the bush, and do what they want.  Why would you allow them to spend our money to go to court to gain a declaratory judgment to run wild with our covenants?

As residents, our fatal flaw has been that we just sat back, didn’t call the board on it, and now have created a monster/speeding train that we can’t stop.      What do I mean?  Residents, this move, by this board, is one for the playbooks.  Your board can’t lose this one.  You couldn’t vote it away, if you tried.  The board wins, whether you vote, or not, because the lethargy that has been growing for years here, is going to be the winner.  Now, your board deviously, has positioned themselves to go into court and use your lethargy to “BE IN A POSITION TO CHANGE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE COVENANTS” !  God help us!   

For just a moment, let’s put the board member with the burning pots, river salvage, flagpole, sign, etc. in the vacant lot adjacent to your home.  Realize the board has left him in defiance of some covenants, and miscellaneous governing documents.  Perhaps, for convenience of his “pot burning fires”, he’ll add a port-a-pot, and leave it there forever, because "it is in use".   This is what you may get, when your board goes to court.  Perhaps the most honest thing the pot burning board member, and your board has allowed, is that one year ago, he put our future in WRITING, on the sign that has stayed on his lot, for over a year.  P.S.  According to our governing documents, you couldn’t have his sign, or any other sign, without seeking their approval.  HERE IS THE SIGN: