The Wedgefield Examiner published the resident letter to the board in a previous article. As always, the name of the resident has been deleted. I did not write the letter to the board, and did not influence the letter.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
MY LETTER TO THE BOARD REQUESTING RECORDS REVIEW
February 24, 2015
TO: WPA BOARD
FROM: Madeline Y. Claveloux
RE: INSURANCE
QUESTION & REQUEST TO
At the end of the January WPA Board Meeting, a resident asked the board
whether the association insurance policy allowed for, or covered volunteers who
were performing work on association projects.
Legal Chair, Garrison said that he didn’t know. The question is important, as during the meeting
the board discussed the fact that volunteers would be working on the gatehouse
project. During previous meetings, it
had been stated from the board table, that there was mold in the
gatehouse. Since the January meeting, I
have observed board member McMillin, and a committee volunteer sweeping up
debris around the gatehouse, with a open trailer parked near by, containing
moldy dry wall. Did the board, prior to
any work being done inside the mold infested (hazardous) gatehouse, verify that
volunteers are covered while performing manual and sometimes, hazardous work
for the association, either through review of the policy, or phone call to the
insurance provider? If so, I’d like to review the portion of the policy that
states that volunteers are covered in these situations. My reason for the request is that I am
concerned for the health and safety of our volunteers, and I believe the board
is endangering our insurance coverage.
I would also like to review the most recent Request for Proposal and
bid response (2), for the gatehouse fix.
The reason for the request is that I would like to see whether there
was consistency in following proper bid procurement processes. A lack of consistency has been observed in
previous reviews, and during discussions at the board table.
I would like to come to the office on March 5th, at 1:00PM,
to review the records. I am giving more than a 5-business day request for the
review of records, as required by state law, which was sent to me by board
member, DeMarchi quite some time ago.
Please note that a $500 check for our 2014 assessment is included with
this request, making me a member in good standing. As long as our board changes the policy
manual in an apparent attempt to circumvent the By-Laws, I will continue to pay
our assessment at the last possible moment, to avoid late fees.
RESIDENT QUESTIONS THE BOARD REGARDING ASSESSMENTS
THE FOLLOWING LETTER TO THE BOARD HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE BLOG, BY THE RESIDENT WRITER. AS ALWAYS, THEIR NAME HAS BEEN REMOVED. |
Sunday, February 22, 2015
ARE WE HEADED DOWN THE SAME SILENT, SECRET, PATH WITH THE GATE HOUSE REPAIRS, THAT WE WERE WITH THE DOCK?
REMEMBER THIS LONG DRAWN OUT SECRET MESS?
IS THE REPAIR OF OUR GATE HOUSE, HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?
As I began to look at the events of the February WPA Board Meeting, I was intentionally looking for a report regarding the ever struggling, almost two years in coming, gate house fix. There wasn't an update. WHY? I'm suggesting that it will follow the same deceptive path that the old dock did. The Water Amenities Committee, once the project was approved, quickly reported on the project completion, but failed to report on the fact that despite the fact that it was suppose to be dragged up on shore, cut up, and hauled away, that it was sitting in the canals. Month after month, the Water Amenities Committee had reports, but the reports did not include the dock in the canals resolution. It was only after a questioning board member, requested information each month, that we were given convoluted answers, as the rest of the board assisted in ignoring, or verbally abusing the questioning board member.
As reported earlier, during the January meeting, McMillin motioned, and it was approved, for $350 to replace the gutters, and properly take water away from the building. Members were reminded that the board had decided to fix the gate house, with volunteer man power, and expertise (??????). This board continues to claim expertise to almost all things known to man. It was stated during board meetings that water had run under the carpet and down the walls, and that there was a mold problem. Additionally, at least one of the contractors who had bid in the last round, had included charges for the professional mold removal.
I've taken pictures of the current state of the gate house (Provided at the end of the article. Deplorable!) I've observed McMillin outside the gate house, with a female volunteer, sweeping up debris around the gate house, with a trailer packed with what looked like old mold stained dry wall. I've looked in the windows and dry wall has been pulled down, and in some places there are areas where the brick is exposed. Yet, we don't have the new gutters that were approved at the January meeting.
What is more important, is that at the end of the January meeting, a resident asked the board whether our insurance allowed and covered volunteers, working on these projects. Garrison said he didn't know. Mold is hazardous to health, and should be removed, and deposed of properly. Did the board hurry in and work inside, failing to check the insurance? We don't know, because they haven't bothered to answer. The question presented by the member, should have been one that any conscientious board member should have presented, before they began this project, and several prior projects.
I tend to believe that once again, like in the case of the dock, they will do what they want to do, and just not talk about it, unless questioned at the board table. The problem, not one person on this board questions anything. The other major, but repetitious problem is, there is no comprehensive plan, total plan, with associated costs, to fix a land mark of our association. In fact, we have new windows, ordered by our president's company, almost two years ago, laying around.
On Tuesday, I will send a letter to the board with my questions, and publish the letter on the blog.
IN THE MEAN TIME, HERE ARE THE PICTURES I TOOK TODAY, OF THE CONDITIONS AT THE GATE HOUSE.
As reported earlier, during the January meeting, McMillin motioned, and it was approved, for $350 to replace the gutters, and properly take water away from the building. Members were reminded that the board had decided to fix the gate house, with volunteer man power, and expertise (??????). This board continues to claim expertise to almost all things known to man. It was stated during board meetings that water had run under the carpet and down the walls, and that there was a mold problem. Additionally, at least one of the contractors who had bid in the last round, had included charges for the professional mold removal.
I've taken pictures of the current state of the gate house (Provided at the end of the article. Deplorable!) I've observed McMillin outside the gate house, with a female volunteer, sweeping up debris around the gate house, with a trailer packed with what looked like old mold stained dry wall. I've looked in the windows and dry wall has been pulled down, and in some places there are areas where the brick is exposed. Yet, we don't have the new gutters that were approved at the January meeting.
What is more important, is that at the end of the January meeting, a resident asked the board whether our insurance allowed and covered volunteers, working on these projects. Garrison said he didn't know. Mold is hazardous to health, and should be removed, and deposed of properly. Did the board hurry in and work inside, failing to check the insurance? We don't know, because they haven't bothered to answer. The question presented by the member, should have been one that any conscientious board member should have presented, before they began this project, and several prior projects.
I tend to believe that once again, like in the case of the dock, they will do what they want to do, and just not talk about it, unless questioned at the board table. The problem, not one person on this board questions anything. The other major, but repetitious problem is, there is no comprehensive plan, total plan, with associated costs, to fix a land mark of our association. In fact, we have new windows, ordered by our president's company, almost two years ago, laying around.
On Tuesday, I will send a letter to the board with my questions, and publish the letter on the blog.
IN THE MEAN TIME, HERE ARE THE PICTURES I TOOK TODAY, OF THE CONDITIONS AT THE GATE HOUSE.
THE FOLLOWING THREE PICTURES DISPLAY GAPS BETWEEN THE BRICK WORK AND THE ROOF
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
POSTS ABOUT THE WPA FEBRUARY BOARD MEETING WILL BEGIN ON SATURDAY
The Wedgefield Examiner hasn't quit following the monthly WPA meetings. We've had visitors! We'll kick off our new articles on Saturday. Wonder dog, Brady says, stay tuned!
Saturday, February 7, 2015
WPA JANUARY DRAINAGE NON REPORT, A REMINDER OF BOARD MEETING, AND WONDERING HOW MUCH THE NON DRAINAGE REPORT WILL COST US. WILL WE FIND OUT AT THE FEBRUARY BOARD MEETING
During the January WPA board meeting, as our president called for each committee report listed on the agenda, as we came to drainage, chair, DeMarchi, reported that there was "no report". He then said that he had a few things to "mention". He stated that the State Department of Transportation, would begin work to install 140 feet of 24 inch drain pipe, and draw box. He said he had been working with the state for over 6 months, and it would cost the state about $14,000. He advised residents to be careful on the road, while work was being done, on the project.
If you drove in and out of Wedgefield, shortly after the meeting, you couldn't miss observing the project. The pipe appears to involve the pond, with our PROUD fountain, on the right hand side, as you enter the association.
I am of the belief, that nothing in life is free. That applies double, to observations regarding our community. I wondered what the state's project would end up costing us, particularly this project. Both DeMarchi, and McMillin have taken the lead, in the pond project over the last few months, each bringing information, and in some cases claims, of having specs, and bids. At times, it appeared that one hand did not know what the other was doing, or just which board member, and committee were in charge. It also appears that we shouldn't worry our LITTLE heads about it, because not one person on the board ever said, "whose project is this anyway?". Well, when you are tired of legislating for idiots, as DeMarchi has stated, why would you think that residents would have questions. My question is, what did DeMarchi, promise the state that we would be doing on our side of the project? Who will be in charge of the project? Our board provides information, on what they appear to view, as what we want to tell them to sell this, and whether we want to provide complete information, at all. Think that's wrong? Go back and review the articles on this site, regarding the Wedgefield Drainage Project. At times, both of these board members were said to be involved, the project had enough changes to provide whip lash, total cost estimates were never made clear in advance of the project, and neither were the actual end costs. Additionally, utility companies, were providing some services. Let's see what information is provided at our board meetings. Will it come up on the February Agenda?
Mark your calendars now for the February 17th board meeting.
Do you realize that for most of the January board meeting, the board, out numbered, the residents in attendance? Seven residents were in attendance when the meeting opened. Two more residents entered about half way through the meeting, bringing the numbers to 9 board members, and nine residents. This is the apathy brought to us by this board. Perhaps, you don't attend because you wouldn't appreciate being told by one board member, that he was tired of legislating for idiots, while the rest of the board sat by. Just maybe, they are in agreement.
If you drove in and out of Wedgefield, shortly after the meeting, you couldn't miss observing the project. The pipe appears to involve the pond, with our PROUD fountain, on the right hand side, as you enter the association.
I am of the belief, that nothing in life is free. That applies double, to observations regarding our community. I wondered what the state's project would end up costing us, particularly this project. Both DeMarchi, and McMillin have taken the lead, in the pond project over the last few months, each bringing information, and in some cases claims, of having specs, and bids. At times, it appeared that one hand did not know what the other was doing, or just which board member, and committee were in charge. It also appears that we shouldn't worry our LITTLE heads about it, because not one person on the board ever said, "whose project is this anyway?". Well, when you are tired of legislating for idiots, as DeMarchi has stated, why would you think that residents would have questions. My question is, what did DeMarchi, promise the state that we would be doing on our side of the project? Who will be in charge of the project? Our board provides information, on what they appear to view, as what we want to tell them to sell this, and whether we want to provide complete information, at all. Think that's wrong? Go back and review the articles on this site, regarding the Wedgefield Drainage Project. At times, both of these board members were said to be involved, the project had enough changes to provide whip lash, total cost estimates were never made clear in advance of the project, and neither were the actual end costs. Additionally, utility companies, were providing some services. Let's see what information is provided at our board meetings. Will it come up on the February Agenda?
Mark your calendars now for the February 17th board meeting.
Do you realize that for most of the January board meeting, the board, out numbered, the residents in attendance? Seven residents were in attendance when the meeting opened. Two more residents entered about half way through the meeting, bringing the numbers to 9 board members, and nine residents. This is the apathy brought to us by this board. Perhaps, you don't attend because you wouldn't appreciate being told by one board member, that he was tired of legislating for idiots, while the rest of the board sat by. Just maybe, they are in agreement.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
THE PROBLEMS WITH THE WPA BOARD SECURING BIDS
This board, has claimed meeting after meeting, that they can't get bids. They've claimed that no one wants to work in Wedgefield. They have laid blame on a number of things, but of course, never the board itself. The subject becomes important, once again, because McMillin announced during the January board meeting, that despite the efforts of posting an ad in the newspaper, and putting a sign out on the main road, that to date, only one bid had been submitted. I contend, that it is the board's ridiculous behavior, lack of proper request for proposal, lack of honest sealed bids and review of bids, and failure to actually want to award a contract (We'll do it ourselves, or award a contract to the board president's company.), that has worn out any willingness by contractors, to even consider wasting their time with this board. Think about it. If you attend the meetings, and observe their process, or lack there of, you might understand.
First, before we list a few things to consider on this point, remember that I posted the content of the newspaper ad for the ground's contract, and thanked the board for taking that step. In the end, it could have been a case of too little, too late.
A SHORT LOOK AT THE BOARD'S HISTORY REGARDING REQUESTS FOR PROPOSAL, SEALED BIDS, CONTRACT AWARDS, CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT, AND OVERSIGHT:
*The board often fails to prepare a proper bid package, including specific instructions that truly hold everyone to a sealed bid process. For instance, I asked to review the very first request for proposal, the bids themselves, and the contract for the gate house repair, which really turned into "the gate house fix". The proposal was specs, with no instructions for a sealed bid process, such as return no later than specified date and time, in a sealed envelope. The spec's were outlined in three specific areas. The award was given to our president's company. I had made an appointment with the office, to review the documents. When I asked for the contract it wasn't there. First, I was told that it was probably at President Walton's for signature. Then calls were made, and I was presented with Walton's company bid, and told that, that was the contract. There wasn't even a line for signatures by both parties, let alone start date, total award, and terms! Additionally, the board had only voted to fund stage I, which makes the instrument ridiculous, because the other two stages were bid, on the very sheet that I was presented with. DeMarchi had put this package together.
*The board is so lax when voting, that it appears, each member has not taken the time to review the request for proposal, the bids, or whether, a true process was held. During the last six months, when discussion about a bulk head, and other details of work for the pond just outside the gate, was discussed, McMillin first claimed to have written specs, held a envelope in his hand claiming it was a sealed bid, and then admitted that he had talked to some contractors, and when the facts came out, the bid had been sent via the fax machine, and placed in the envelope. When, in a credible bid process, except for a bidder's conference where all potential bidders are invited to hear the same thing - only after the package went out and included a date and time for the conference, is speaking to individual bidders, part of a legitimate process? Talking to individual bidders, is nothing more than an opportunity to provide a favored bidder, an advantage. Additionally, at times, like the gate house, the pond project has had McMillin at one point, and DeMarchi, as leaders of the project. It could appear to be a behind the scenes battle of who gets to be in charge. The second, and latest round of bids for the gate house, finally had Johnson, asking to see the bids, and saying something about them not quite being what they should be.
*On a negative side, regarding the bidders, it sometimes appears that the board calls some of their particular industry friends, and asks them to bid. In the case of the gate house, we have DeMarchi's ex-boss, who has been high before. It could appear that they want you to think that they made the effort. When DeMarchi, started his first drainage projects in his neighborhood, there were two bids, one was our current grounds vendor, and the other I believe, was contacted by DeMarchi. DeMarchi stated at the board meeting that a contract was awarded, that there was only $20 difference, and he'd save $20 where he could. At the time, I wondered why for $20, you wouldn't select a vendor with a concrete work history, with the WPA. I went to the office to review the bids. While they were $20 apart, the figures on the awarded contractor's bid were crossed out and changed in several places. Additionally, when I reviewed the invoice for payment, the contractor had sent it requesting the original amount of his bid (before cross outs), and again, someone had crossed out again, and brought the invoice to $20 less than the other bidder. What does it look like to you?
*As to bidders, this board wouldn't get the time of day from me, after my exposure to their ridiculous behavior, the first time. Legitimate professionals, expect a legitimate process with intention to really award the contract to SOMEONE, other than do it yourself-wanted it that way, in the first place - board and volunteers. Professional time spent visiting a site, preparing a bid, is time wasted, if there was no real intention to take you seriously. Additionally, those brave enough to bid, have at times been named as should be, but laughed about, from the board table, by our so called experts, in any field you can name.
Our board can appear to be unfair to the few bidders who have received awards. If you consider the current ground's contractor, I believe they have been working with the WPA since 2009, and have had little to no, raise, and have been cheated out of some of the very funded line items, of the contract.
The only time that the WPA has had several willing bidders has been when we hired an engineering firm to draw the specs, run the bidding process and oversee, the contract. The recent road contracts would be an example.
As a vendor, I would not want to be overseen by people who claim they know it all, lack the credentials to oversee my work properly, and have an agenda that isn't always consistent with the project.
I sincerely hope we get more bids for the grounds contract. It doesn't take an engineering firm to send out the request for proposal package, and handle oversight, but it require a legitimate process, and integrity by those who are supervising, and I think we lack that.
First, before we list a few things to consider on this point, remember that I posted the content of the newspaper ad for the ground's contract, and thanked the board for taking that step. In the end, it could have been a case of too little, too late.
A SHORT LOOK AT THE BOARD'S HISTORY REGARDING REQUESTS FOR PROPOSAL, SEALED BIDS, CONTRACT AWARDS, CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT, AND OVERSIGHT:
*The board often fails to prepare a proper bid package, including specific instructions that truly hold everyone to a sealed bid process. For instance, I asked to review the very first request for proposal, the bids themselves, and the contract for the gate house repair, which really turned into "the gate house fix". The proposal was specs, with no instructions for a sealed bid process, such as return no later than specified date and time, in a sealed envelope. The spec's were outlined in three specific areas. The award was given to our president's company. I had made an appointment with the office, to review the documents. When I asked for the contract it wasn't there. First, I was told that it was probably at President Walton's for signature. Then calls were made, and I was presented with Walton's company bid, and told that, that was the contract. There wasn't even a line for signatures by both parties, let alone start date, total award, and terms! Additionally, the board had only voted to fund stage I, which makes the instrument ridiculous, because the other two stages were bid, on the very sheet that I was presented with. DeMarchi had put this package together.
*The board is so lax when voting, that it appears, each member has not taken the time to review the request for proposal, the bids, or whether, a true process was held. During the last six months, when discussion about a bulk head, and other details of work for the pond just outside the gate, was discussed, McMillin first claimed to have written specs, held a envelope in his hand claiming it was a sealed bid, and then admitted that he had talked to some contractors, and when the facts came out, the bid had been sent via the fax machine, and placed in the envelope. When, in a credible bid process, except for a bidder's conference where all potential bidders are invited to hear the same thing - only after the package went out and included a date and time for the conference, is speaking to individual bidders, part of a legitimate process? Talking to individual bidders, is nothing more than an opportunity to provide a favored bidder, an advantage. Additionally, at times, like the gate house, the pond project has had McMillin at one point, and DeMarchi, as leaders of the project. It could appear to be a behind the scenes battle of who gets to be in charge. The second, and latest round of bids for the gate house, finally had Johnson, asking to see the bids, and saying something about them not quite being what they should be.
*On a negative side, regarding the bidders, it sometimes appears that the board calls some of their particular industry friends, and asks them to bid. In the case of the gate house, we have DeMarchi's ex-boss, who has been high before. It could appear that they want you to think that they made the effort. When DeMarchi, started his first drainage projects in his neighborhood, there were two bids, one was our current grounds vendor, and the other I believe, was contacted by DeMarchi. DeMarchi stated at the board meeting that a contract was awarded, that there was only $20 difference, and he'd save $20 where he could. At the time, I wondered why for $20, you wouldn't select a vendor with a concrete work history, with the WPA. I went to the office to review the bids. While they were $20 apart, the figures on the awarded contractor's bid were crossed out and changed in several places. Additionally, when I reviewed the invoice for payment, the contractor had sent it requesting the original amount of his bid (before cross outs), and again, someone had crossed out again, and brought the invoice to $20 less than the other bidder. What does it look like to you?
*As to bidders, this board wouldn't get the time of day from me, after my exposure to their ridiculous behavior, the first time. Legitimate professionals, expect a legitimate process with intention to really award the contract to SOMEONE, other than do it yourself-wanted it that way, in the first place - board and volunteers. Professional time spent visiting a site, preparing a bid, is time wasted, if there was no real intention to take you seriously. Additionally, those brave enough to bid, have at times been named as should be, but laughed about, from the board table, by our so called experts, in any field you can name.
Our board can appear to be unfair to the few bidders who have received awards. If you consider the current ground's contractor, I believe they have been working with the WPA since 2009, and have had little to no, raise, and have been cheated out of some of the very funded line items, of the contract.
The only time that the WPA has had several willing bidders has been when we hired an engineering firm to draw the specs, run the bidding process and oversee, the contract. The recent road contracts would be an example.
As a vendor, I would not want to be overseen by people who claim they know it all, lack the credentials to oversee my work properly, and have an agenda that isn't always consistent with the project.
I sincerely hope we get more bids for the grounds contract. It doesn't take an engineering firm to send out the request for proposal package, and handle oversight, but it require a legitimate process, and integrity by those who are supervising, and I think we lack that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)