WONDER DOG BRADY, SAYS, "STAY TUNED"
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Sunday, March 29, 2015
PART II OF THE MARCH WPA BOARD MEETING: TWO BOARD MEMBERS SPEAK IN BEHALF OF SOUND BUSINESS AND MONEY BASICS, DURING THREE COMMITTEE REPORTS
As always, listen to the tape of the meeting to verify for yourself. I attended the meeting, and have provided the following information to the best of my ability. Comments, will be noted as such, as they are printed in RED
The three committee reports are: Finance, Grounds, and Roads. The two board members are Cline and Anderson. The committee reports mentioned in this article are not complete, but allow me to make the point. Complete reports will follow later.
Finance: Treasurer DeMarchi states that he, and Kathy have been contacting banks for a better interest rate. He would like to transfer all the money from Edward Jones to a new account. He goes on to mention a few banks, amongst them, South Atlantic, that offers .3%, He says they pay much more than Edward Jones, which pays .1%.
Cline questions moving the money, and wants proof that it is more. She feels more money is made at Edward Jones. It isn't just the .1%. We have made more on purchasing CD's through Edward Jones. Garrison says that based on what DeMarchi says, he would propose closing out Edward Jones, because he believes there are better opportunities at the bank. DeMarchi comes back saying that the banks offer CD's, but interest rates are so low. Finally, a board member suggests that they transfer $50,001 from Edward Jones to South Atlantic, and leave $58,000 in Edward Jones. The motion passes.
Cline exposed what DeMarchi, would not. I'm not sure why. As Treasurer, he should know the true value of Edward Jones, as past Treasurer, Cline does. Edward Jones may only pay .1% today, but they continue to offer partial CD's, at much higher rates. In my humble terms, these CD's were previously negotiated by other parties, with large dollar amounts, and a maturity term. If the originator has to exit the contract, usually with penalties, Edward Jones makes the balance of the contract available, at a higher rate, than today's rate. Thank you Board Member, Cline for speaking out, and reminding, and re-educating all of us.
Roads:
Roads Chair, Anderson, reports that they have been doing some cold patching. He is also ready to start evaluating our roads, for another project. He has contacted several engineering firms, and proposes that we hire Earth Works. They would assist in evaluating the road areas most in need, prepare the bid package, contract, and provide project oversight, with their contract, not to exceed $3,250. DeMarchi wants to know if we can just get the asphalt??? Anderson wants the project handled as the last project was. He says he doesn't know roads. In the end, the board votes to approve. Anderson, should be thanked for sticking with professional engineering and oversight. Quite frankly, he, or any other board member, does not have to be an authority on roads, building, etc., their job is to have enough knowledge of good business practices, and bring the right people in to perform the services for a job well done, at our expense. The rest of this board, minus the newest member (Ebert), have continually spouted about their expertise, to the detriment of many of our projects, that have cost us more in the end, because they didn't have a plan. Some how, this board listens to Anderson, when they have failed in the past, to hear another board member, asking for engineering, oversight, etc. Anderson, followed the same path with a successful outcome, about a year ago. At that time, at least two large areas had to be done again, after we had paid for them to be done a few years, prior. Then, a board member, who sat on the Roads Committee, wanted engineering, on what ended up to be a $29,000 failure, and the contractor was sighted by the state. Here is what three of the current board members had to say about the request for engineering. The following was taken from WPA meeting minutes.
McBride," What I would like the board to approve, is to approve the roads committee to search for technical support to determine what we actually need to do with these 42 spots that we have out there. Before they get any worse, ok, and procure bids for that at the same time we need to search for what money we might have available to do the job. But there will be a cost with this help that we need. I think we need the help because there are too many different ways to patch something and the best way and there is an affordable way and we need the affordable way.
Bob Garrison: In my view, that’s what we’re paying the guys that’s doing the paving to figure out. To bring in an engineering firm or a manager, whatever you’re suggesting I think is just wasted money. We’re not talking about sending something to Neptune here, we’re talking about paving roads. That’s a fairly straight forward concept I think there’s enough expertise here with people that do this and have done it, Johnny & Jacky, that we don’t have a pretty good idea of what we can spec to without having to spend money to tell us that. That’s just my view.
Jacky Walton: Can I make a comment? This is just my recent past experience, I used a paving company to come out and do some patching for me. This particular company had their own engineer in-house, so when we contacted them they sent him out to observe and to give a quote based on their engineers specs.
Johnny Huggins: Why can’t we get the road committee look into the specs?
John McBride: I did, I got a book, I haven’t had Kathy print them out because the book probably 100 pages long. I’m not a road expert, (COMMENT: This is what Anderson said, but now these three guys, will listen, and vote his way, without demeaning him, or getting nasty) I cannot do this. I can look at what we need to do but I cannot specify what we need to do the right job on these patches, some of these patches wouldn’t have been done with what I know now, would not have been done the way they were done, ok, so I don’t feel like I can rely on a contractor to do what I need an engineer to tell me what’s the best most affordable to make, let’s just say, a cul-de-sac useable to us for a long period of time. Stuff we have going through these cul-de-sacs today they are tearing it up. Just tearing it up, so what do we need to do, how thick does that asphalt need to be, how thick does that base need to be, what kind of base do we need to use its complex, it’s not simple. One of the things we’re seeing where these roads are alligatoring you see a lot cracks and you see a lot of sand on there, that’s the base coming through the cracks. So you’re losing the base. New base has to go in, all that has to come out and it’s because of water. But I can look and see if there’s a company that has that but what do I do if I can’t find one? (COMMENT: When Anderson brought engineers in on his first project, everything said here, needed to be done.)
Bob Garrison: Let me ask you a question. Are ya’ll prepared at this point to move ahead you already got this other $9,000 approved, right? We’ve got plenty of stuff to do that doesn’t take an engineer or a rocket scientist or anybody else to figure out where some of these holes are. Now what the best way to fill them is to be is open to question, I understand that, are ya’ll prepared to spend that $9,000 now with the guy we got?
Johnny Huggins: Then you have another month without any road repair.
John McBride: It’s not going to hurt us? We’ve been months right now. I just don’t want to spend money and not get value for it.
Jacky Walton: Well, here’s one of the problems if we don’t address some of these holes now, if we wait another month, we wait another 2 months instead of spending $1,000 to repair these holes we’ll be spending $10,000 to repair because we didn’t repair them now. (Board Commotion) Inaudible (COMMENT: First, as you read Garrison's comments above, obviously the board did not have the expertise, Garrison claims. He and his crew on the board, usually love to state their "EXPERTISE". Second, read Walton's comments again. If you attend board meetings, they are always in a hurry to get to it, and we suffer for their lack of EXPERTISE, AND IN THEIR HURRY, THEIR FAILURE TO USE SOUND BUSINESS PRACTICES. Two years ago, the gatehouse, had to be done. Garrison, as Legal Chair, would not listen, or seek legal opinion regarding conflict of interest, and voted with his cronies, to give a contract to the WPA president's firm. The work still isn't complete.
John McBride: I’m saying, to spend $9,000 it will take $15,000 to do the same amount of work….in other words he’s going charge us too much money, by $5,000. I’m not willing to spend $5,000 to throw away. That’s more than $10.00 a person here. That’s a lot of money Johnny.
Jacky Walton: I agree with what you’re saying, but here’s another problem, do you know asphalt? You don’t have a couple more months and they’ll be shutting the plants down. So now you’ll be waiting until the spring of next year.
John McBride: I think we can take the major holes we have and fix them.
Bob Garrison: How many big holes do we have?
Jacky Walton: Who’s going to check them?
Bob Garrison: Well you know where they are.
Jacky Walton: I make a motion that we use Myrtle Paving to continue with the paving using the remaining $9,000 from the budget.
John McBride: That’s not going to complete the work, though.
Bob Garrison: Well, we know that. You’re never going to complete the road paving work because….
John McBride: I want to take that $9,000 with a new contract, if we put it out for bids and do it in the right way, ok. Use some of that money with an engineering company so we correct these problems the right way.
Johnny Huggins: We got a motion.
Bob Garrison: Second of all if you’re using some of the money for this engineering firm then you don’t have much money in terms now it’s not a $1.25 a square foot anymore. It’s $1.25-1.30 a square foot plus the engineering firm divided by that number of square feet. When we get all done, we probably talking about less than $1.00 a square foot and waiting 3 more months to do it.
Bob Garrison: Alright, any other discussion?
Larry McMillin: For the sake of timing and everything I think this is the right way to go with this. I think if we prioritize the areas that we want done to get the worst ones done first and whenever he runs out of money that’s it. We have a new budget coming up give me some figures you think you need for next year and dollar amount and we will work it in. For expediency and the fact that the school buses are going to start coming in next week we need to get something done. We’ve waited all summer. (COMMENTS: Yes, McMillin is in a hurry too! The problem is that he never stands up for quality, and sound use of our money. How did that work on the gatehouse?
Bob Garrison: Alright, any other discussion?
Johnny Huggins: Ok, he just resigned. From Roads.
John McBride: Yep, I’m done. If I don’t get the help I need to do….
Bob Garrison: If you don’t get your way….. (Commotion)
Johnny Huggins: That’s ok, let’s not argue.
Bob Garrison: All those in favor of the motion presented by Jacky , signify by saying aye.
Motion passes 7 to 1.
So, we're back to comments in red, as we end the second committee report. Again, Anderson should be thanked for handling his projects in a credible, business manner. DeMarchi's comment, should be considered, because our board hasn't lost the disease, that took us down the $29,000 project, discussed in the minutes above. The "expertise", "we've got to get it done now", "volunteers can do it", continue to be symptoms, of the disease, because this board, in general, and in mass, continue to vote "yes", in these shoddy circumstances.
Grounds:
For now, we are only going to address one portion of this report, which was given by McMillin, because he has another less than professional manner, for handling a money situation, which has to be cleaned up by another board member - Cline.
McMillin, starts off saying that he wants to get ready for spring planting. He'll need plants, and compost, etc. He'll need about $1,250. If approved, he'd like a check prepared, and CASHED, and THE CASH KEPT IN THE OFFICE. He says that he has two, or three places that he has to make purchases at, and he'll bring receipts back, and pull the cash as he needs it. Our President, questions how many places he has to go, but does not question this method! Cline, doesn't appear to think that it should be handled that way, and suggests that he call for checks, as he needs them. A second thanks to Cline, for holding this board to standard business practices!
What can one say to this? It should be noted that during this very board meeting, that it was reported that 5 or 6 cars in the association had been entered, and some robbed of electronics, etc. We're going to declare, at an open meeting, that we have decided to store $1,250 IN CASH, IN THE OFFICE??? Quite frankly, that is the least of our problems with this situation. What sound, prudent, business person does this stuff? Some on this board, elected him TREASURER, at one point!
The three committee reports are: Finance, Grounds, and Roads. The two board members are Cline and Anderson. The committee reports mentioned in this article are not complete, but allow me to make the point. Complete reports will follow later.
Finance: Treasurer DeMarchi states that he, and Kathy have been contacting banks for a better interest rate. He would like to transfer all the money from Edward Jones to a new account. He goes on to mention a few banks, amongst them, South Atlantic, that offers .3%, He says they pay much more than Edward Jones, which pays .1%.
Cline questions moving the money, and wants proof that it is more. She feels more money is made at Edward Jones. It isn't just the .1%. We have made more on purchasing CD's through Edward Jones. Garrison says that based on what DeMarchi says, he would propose closing out Edward Jones, because he believes there are better opportunities at the bank. DeMarchi comes back saying that the banks offer CD's, but interest rates are so low. Finally, a board member suggests that they transfer $50,001 from Edward Jones to South Atlantic, and leave $58,000 in Edward Jones. The motion passes.
Cline exposed what DeMarchi, would not. I'm not sure why. As Treasurer, he should know the true value of Edward Jones, as past Treasurer, Cline does. Edward Jones may only pay .1% today, but they continue to offer partial CD's, at much higher rates. In my humble terms, these CD's were previously negotiated by other parties, with large dollar amounts, and a maturity term. If the originator has to exit the contract, usually with penalties, Edward Jones makes the balance of the contract available, at a higher rate, than today's rate. Thank you Board Member, Cline for speaking out, and reminding, and re-educating all of us.
Roads:
Roads Chair, Anderson, reports that they have been doing some cold patching. He is also ready to start evaluating our roads, for another project. He has contacted several engineering firms, and proposes that we hire Earth Works. They would assist in evaluating the road areas most in need, prepare the bid package, contract, and provide project oversight, with their contract, not to exceed $3,250. DeMarchi wants to know if we can just get the asphalt??? Anderson wants the project handled as the last project was. He says he doesn't know roads. In the end, the board votes to approve. Anderson, should be thanked for sticking with professional engineering and oversight. Quite frankly, he, or any other board member, does not have to be an authority on roads, building, etc., their job is to have enough knowledge of good business practices, and bring the right people in to perform the services for a job well done, at our expense. The rest of this board, minus the newest member (Ebert), have continually spouted about their expertise, to the detriment of many of our projects, that have cost us more in the end, because they didn't have a plan. Some how, this board listens to Anderson, when they have failed in the past, to hear another board member, asking for engineering, oversight, etc. Anderson, followed the same path with a successful outcome, about a year ago. At that time, at least two large areas had to be done again, after we had paid for them to be done a few years, prior. Then, a board member, who sat on the Roads Committee, wanted engineering, on what ended up to be a $29,000 failure, and the contractor was sighted by the state. Here is what three of the current board members had to say about the request for engineering. The following was taken from WPA meeting minutes.
McBride," What I would like the board to approve, is to approve the roads committee to search for technical support to determine what we actually need to do with these 42 spots that we have out there. Before they get any worse, ok, and procure bids for that at the same time we need to search for what money we might have available to do the job. But there will be a cost with this help that we need. I think we need the help because there are too many different ways to patch something and the best way and there is an affordable way and we need the affordable way.
Bob Garrison: In my view, that’s what we’re paying the guys that’s doing the paving to figure out. To bring in an engineering firm or a manager, whatever you’re suggesting I think is just wasted money. We’re not talking about sending something to Neptune here, we’re talking about paving roads. That’s a fairly straight forward concept I think there’s enough expertise here with people that do this and have done it, Johnny & Jacky, that we don’t have a pretty good idea of what we can spec to without having to spend money to tell us that. That’s just my view.
Jacky Walton: Can I make a comment? This is just my recent past experience, I used a paving company to come out and do some patching for me. This particular company had their own engineer in-house, so when we contacted them they sent him out to observe and to give a quote based on their engineers specs.
Johnny Huggins: Why can’t we get the road committee look into the specs?
John McBride: I did, I got a book, I haven’t had Kathy print them out because the book probably 100 pages long. I’m not a road expert, (COMMENT: This is what Anderson said, but now these three guys, will listen, and vote his way, without demeaning him, or getting nasty) I cannot do this. I can look at what we need to do but I cannot specify what we need to do the right job on these patches, some of these patches wouldn’t have been done with what I know now, would not have been done the way they were done, ok, so I don’t feel like I can rely on a contractor to do what I need an engineer to tell me what’s the best most affordable to make, let’s just say, a cul-de-sac useable to us for a long period of time. Stuff we have going through these cul-de-sacs today they are tearing it up. Just tearing it up, so what do we need to do, how thick does that asphalt need to be, how thick does that base need to be, what kind of base do we need to use its complex, it’s not simple. One of the things we’re seeing where these roads are alligatoring you see a lot cracks and you see a lot of sand on there, that’s the base coming through the cracks. So you’re losing the base. New base has to go in, all that has to come out and it’s because of water. But I can look and see if there’s a company that has that but what do I do if I can’t find one? (COMMENT: When Anderson brought engineers in on his first project, everything said here, needed to be done.)
Bob Garrison: Let me ask you a question. Are ya’ll prepared at this point to move ahead you already got this other $9,000 approved, right? We’ve got plenty of stuff to do that doesn’t take an engineer or a rocket scientist or anybody else to figure out where some of these holes are. Now what the best way to fill them is to be is open to question, I understand that, are ya’ll prepared to spend that $9,000 now with the guy we got?
Johnny Huggins: Then you have another month without any road repair.
John McBride: It’s not going to hurt us? We’ve been months right now. I just don’t want to spend money and not get value for it.
Jacky Walton: Well, here’s one of the problems if we don’t address some of these holes now, if we wait another month, we wait another 2 months instead of spending $1,000 to repair these holes we’ll be spending $10,000 to repair because we didn’t repair them now. (Board Commotion) Inaudible (COMMENT: First, as you read Garrison's comments above, obviously the board did not have the expertise, Garrison claims. He and his crew on the board, usually love to state their "EXPERTISE". Second, read Walton's comments again. If you attend board meetings, they are always in a hurry to get to it, and we suffer for their lack of EXPERTISE, AND IN THEIR HURRY, THEIR FAILURE TO USE SOUND BUSINESS PRACTICES. Two years ago, the gatehouse, had to be done. Garrison, as Legal Chair, would not listen, or seek legal opinion regarding conflict of interest, and voted with his cronies, to give a contract to the WPA president's firm. The work still isn't complete.
John McBride: I’m saying, to spend $9,000 it will take $15,000 to do the same amount of work….in other words he’s going charge us too much money, by $5,000. I’m not willing to spend $5,000 to throw away. That’s more than $10.00 a person here. That’s a lot of money Johnny.
Jacky Walton: I agree with what you’re saying, but here’s another problem, do you know asphalt? You don’t have a couple more months and they’ll be shutting the plants down. So now you’ll be waiting until the spring of next year.
John McBride: I think we can take the major holes we have and fix them.
Bob Garrison: How many big holes do we have?
Jacky Walton: Who’s going to check them?
Bob Garrison: Well you know where they are.
Jacky Walton: I make a motion that we use Myrtle Paving to continue with the paving using the remaining $9,000 from the budget.
John McBride: That’s not going to complete the work, though.
Bob Garrison: Well, we know that. You’re never going to complete the road paving work because….
John McBride: I want to take that $9,000 with a new contract, if we put it out for bids and do it in the right way, ok. Use some of that money with an engineering company so we correct these problems the right way.
Johnny Huggins: We got a motion.
Bob Garrison: Second of all if you’re using some of the money for this engineering firm then you don’t have much money in terms now it’s not a $1.25 a square foot anymore. It’s $1.25-1.30 a square foot plus the engineering firm divided by that number of square feet. When we get all done, we probably talking about less than $1.00 a square foot and waiting 3 more months to do it.
Bob Garrison: Alright, any other discussion?
Larry McMillin: For the sake of timing and everything I think this is the right way to go with this. I think if we prioritize the areas that we want done to get the worst ones done first and whenever he runs out of money that’s it. We have a new budget coming up give me some figures you think you need for next year and dollar amount and we will work it in. For expediency and the fact that the school buses are going to start coming in next week we need to get something done. We’ve waited all summer. (COMMENTS: Yes, McMillin is in a hurry too! The problem is that he never stands up for quality, and sound use of our money. How did that work on the gatehouse?
Bob Garrison: Alright, any other discussion?
Johnny Huggins: Ok, he just resigned. From Roads.
John McBride: Yep, I’m done. If I don’t get the help I need to do….
Bob Garrison: If you don’t get your way….. (Commotion)
Johnny Huggins: That’s ok, let’s not argue.
Bob Garrison: All those in favor of the motion presented by Jacky , signify by saying aye.
Motion passes 7 to 1.
So, we're back to comments in red, as we end the second committee report. Again, Anderson should be thanked for handling his projects in a credible, business manner. DeMarchi's comment, should be considered, because our board hasn't lost the disease, that took us down the $29,000 project, discussed in the minutes above. The "expertise", "we've got to get it done now", "volunteers can do it", continue to be symptoms, of the disease, because this board, in general, and in mass, continue to vote "yes", in these shoddy circumstances.
Grounds:
For now, we are only going to address one portion of this report, which was given by McMillin, because he has another less than professional manner, for handling a money situation, which has to be cleaned up by another board member - Cline.
McMillin, starts off saying that he wants to get ready for spring planting. He'll need plants, and compost, etc. He'll need about $1,250. If approved, he'd like a check prepared, and CASHED, and THE CASH KEPT IN THE OFFICE. He says that he has two, or three places that he has to make purchases at, and he'll bring receipts back, and pull the cash as he needs it. Our President, questions how many places he has to go, but does not question this method! Cline, doesn't appear to think that it should be handled that way, and suggests that he call for checks, as he needs them. A second thanks to Cline, for holding this board to standard business practices!
What can one say to this? It should be noted that during this very board meeting, that it was reported that 5 or 6 cars in the association had been entered, and some robbed of electronics, etc. We're going to declare, at an open meeting, that we have decided to store $1,250 IN CASH, IN THE OFFICE??? Quite frankly, that is the least of our problems with this situation. What sound, prudent, business person does this stuff? Some on this board, elected him TREASURER, at one point!
Friday, March 27, 2015
PART I OF THE MARCH 17 WPA BOARD MEETING: THE "NO" UPDATES
As always, listen to the tape of the meeting to verify for yourself. I attended the meeting, and have provided the following information to the best of my ability. Comments, will be noted as such.
There were two areas of interest, that our board omitted updating us about.
1) It has been 6 months since our board voted on the settlement of the case regarding the canal lot owner, who refused to pay his/her $5,000 assessment for the dredging. Again this month, there was no update. Why?
2) There wasn't an update on the gatehouse. Months ago, McMillin received board approval for the gutters. Your board, also determined, that volunteers would complete the gatehouse project. This month, McMillin mentioned moving on the gutters soon, but failed to inform the membership about the work that had been done. MOLDY dry wall had been removed, placed in a trailer near the gatehouse, and it could be assumed disposed of. Why didn't the board bring us up to date?
COMMENTS:
Most of this board (We only have one new face, after the November election.), has operated on "we'll tell when we want to, if ever, and what we want to". They tend to call their failure to discuss, but unanimously vote, cohesive. These two items, are just more added to a long list, of failure behind the scenes, with projects, cover up, and no information, or lack of clarity (if ever), when pushed by questions. Right now, we have no one on the board who appears willing to question at the table, and bring information out that way - almost forced provision of information, so we are left in the dark.
You might ask, how important can the gatehouse be? It is important because we have a right to open, according to the governing documents, state law (introduced in 2010, and by DeMarchi, regarding record review and copies), and just plain good business operation. After reading and reporting, what a professional contractor said about the gatehouse, "Removal of dry wall and floor coverings. (This will be done by a mold remediation company due to the severity of MOLDS that are growing so this will take care of Gate House Proposal # 1-2 as well." He ends with, "This is a good faith estimate for work described in the bid proposal as well as extras. highly advise to be done." He goes on in another area to say, "Anything with a asterisk is highly advised extras to prevent this problem from happening in the future. Due to the fact the building was built with no extra plywood an water barrier there are no guarantees the elastic membrane and vapor barrier are highly recommended to take the place of the plywood an water barrier to prevent water coming in that penetrates the brick." , a prudent person, would have to believe, that your board made poor decisions, regarding volunteers doing the work, in place of professionals. Additionally, it could appear that they moved forward, without the assurance that the volunteers would be properly protected under the WPA insurance, if harm came to any of them. It also appears that they could be covering - not reporting, to keep it off the tape and record.
As far as the canal lawsuit settlement, that has been dragged out, handled by poor lawyer selection by this board (One of them was disbarred during the case.), and what could appear as an attempt by our Legal Chair, to call it anything, but a settlement. When your board has to vote on the terms, IT IS A SETTLEMENT. Just maybe, if they stay silent long enough, you will forget to ask, and find out exactly what it has cost all of us, while our Legal Chair twists and churns information, from his board seat, and your board sits by, and nods, and votes approval.
Think that is harsh? Think again. At one point toward the close of the March meeting, regarding a concern, McMillin says, "we can do what I did to Great Lawns", and another board member says, "don't go there". That's just the way they operate!
There were two areas of interest, that our board omitted updating us about.
1) It has been 6 months since our board voted on the settlement of the case regarding the canal lot owner, who refused to pay his/her $5,000 assessment for the dredging. Again this month, there was no update. Why?
2) There wasn't an update on the gatehouse. Months ago, McMillin received board approval for the gutters. Your board, also determined, that volunteers would complete the gatehouse project. This month, McMillin mentioned moving on the gutters soon, but failed to inform the membership about the work that had been done. MOLDY dry wall had been removed, placed in a trailer near the gatehouse, and it could be assumed disposed of. Why didn't the board bring us up to date?
COMMENTS:
Most of this board (We only have one new face, after the November election.), has operated on "we'll tell when we want to, if ever, and what we want to". They tend to call their failure to discuss, but unanimously vote, cohesive. These two items, are just more added to a long list, of failure behind the scenes, with projects, cover up, and no information, or lack of clarity (if ever), when pushed by questions. Right now, we have no one on the board who appears willing to question at the table, and bring information out that way - almost forced provision of information, so we are left in the dark.
You might ask, how important can the gatehouse be? It is important because we have a right to open, according to the governing documents, state law (introduced in 2010, and by DeMarchi, regarding record review and copies), and just plain good business operation. After reading and reporting, what a professional contractor said about the gatehouse, "Removal of dry wall and floor coverings. (This will be done by a mold remediation company due to the severity of MOLDS that are growing so this will take care of Gate House Proposal # 1-2 as well." He ends with, "This is a good faith estimate for work described in the bid proposal as well as extras. highly advise to be done." He goes on in another area to say, "Anything with a asterisk is highly advised extras to prevent this problem from happening in the future. Due to the fact the building was built with no extra plywood an water barrier there are no guarantees the elastic membrane and vapor barrier are highly recommended to take the place of the plywood an water barrier to prevent water coming in that penetrates the brick." , a prudent person, would have to believe, that your board made poor decisions, regarding volunteers doing the work, in place of professionals. Additionally, it could appear that they moved forward, without the assurance that the volunteers would be properly protected under the WPA insurance, if harm came to any of them. It also appears that they could be covering - not reporting, to keep it off the tape and record.
As far as the canal lawsuit settlement, that has been dragged out, handled by poor lawyer selection by this board (One of them was disbarred during the case.), and what could appear as an attempt by our Legal Chair, to call it anything, but a settlement. When your board has to vote on the terms, IT IS A SETTLEMENT. Just maybe, if they stay silent long enough, you will forget to ask, and find out exactly what it has cost all of us, while our Legal Chair twists and churns information, from his board seat, and your board sits by, and nods, and votes approval.
Think that is harsh? Think again. At one point toward the close of the March meeting, regarding a concern, McMillin says, "we can do what I did to Great Lawns", and another board member says, "don't go there". That's just the way they operate!
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
MARCH 18, I VISIT THE OFFICE TO REVIEW RECORDS REGARDING THE GATE HOUSE FIX, AND TO THE SECTION OF THE WPA INSURANCE POLICY COVERING VOLUNTEERS PERFORMING LABOR, SOMETIMES HAZARDOUS WORK
As reported earlier, here is the letter I sent to the office.
February 24, 2015
TO: WPA BOARD
FROM: Madeline Y. Claveloux
RE: INSURANCE
QUESTION & REQUEST TO REVIEW RECORDS
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.
As the March 5th date got close, and I hadn't received an answer, I resent the request with a added note, that I knew they had received the letter because it contained a check, and they had cashed it. Soon after, the Community Liaison, notified me that I could review the files. I had to move the date from the 5th, to March 18th, because of illness. In fact, the Community Liaison reported last night, that I would be allowed to review the files.
When I arrived at the office, I was presented a file folder that contained one sheet of paper. It was the bid spec sheet. I asked about the portion of the insurance policy regarding working volunteers, and the two bid responses, noted in my letter. My observations, are not negative, in regards to staff member, Kathy. In my opinion, she is caught in the middle, and does a great job. I take what she says, and remain pleasant, because she is the apparent bearer of our board's ridiculous messages. In regard to the bids, she told me my letter had been discussed, and she provided to me what she was told she could.
In regard to the insurance, she explained the following, and I told her I would write it down, so I didn't make any mistakes. She explained that she had gone through the entire policy, and could not find this specific item. She had called the agent, who explained the following. I have laid it out in bullets.
*The volunteers must be on common property.
*They must be volunteering.
*Nothing is prohibited.
*If there is a claim, the volunteer must pursue the insurance company themselves.
*This question is a fine line. It is technically covered, but the volunteer has to go after the insurance company. Note, pursue, wasn't defined. Do the volunteers have to sue? We don't know.
*90% of the time, the insurance company will pay.
That ends the information I was provided, regarding the insurance.
I took my single sheet document - the gate house fix specs, and began to make notes. It was well laid out, clearly defined, had a response date, but I could not determine, how the contractor received the request. At some point in my note taking, Kathy made a call to DeMarchi, and she came and told me that she could provide me the bids, and she did.
I believe these bids were opened at the December 2014, or the January 2015 board meetings. I attended the meeting they were opened. Your board found both bids high, and determined that volunteers could do the work. It should be noted that a resident questioned the insurance aspect, as noted in my letter. Legal Chair, Garrison said he didn't know. While, I value volunteers, and their efforts, the risks, and final outcome, to our assets, should be considered.
I will not name the contractors. The first, we'll call contractor "B", who happens to be DeMarchi's old boss. The second contractor came from Pawley's Island, so we'll call him, contractor "P". At a glance, contractor "B", was less than contractor "P". Contractor "B", put little effort into the bid. He had 5 or 6 lines, with pricing, but very little detail. Contractor "P", filled a whole page. He addressed every aspect of the specs, and added suggestions, all with associated pricing. I'm not going to disclose the pricing. I wanted to see whether there was a fair, request, and a reasonable, complete response. There was all of that in contractor "P's" response. Go listen to the tape. Your all knowing, we have the expertise board, said volunteers would do it. It must mean including the MOLD ridden, hazardous to all, gatehouse.
I enjoy watching TV programs that remodel homes, flip homes, etc. In every instance, when mold appears they halt everything, and stop until they can get a specialist in. That concern arrives in special suits, breathing equipment, and has to wrap the debris and haul it away. Remember, McMillin had a open trailer, with it all sitting out there. Remember also, that this board, claims time, and time, again, that they have the expertise!
The board selected these two contractors for their "expertise", wouldn't you think?????? Expert "B", DeMarchi's old boss, did not elaborate. Expert "P" did! I'll quote expert "P". He states, in writing, "Removal of dry wall and floor coverings. (This will be done by a mold remediation company due to the severity of MOLDS that are growing so this will take care of Gate House Proposal # 1-2 as well." He ends with, "This is a good faith estimate for work described in the bid proposal as well as extras. highly advise dto be done." He goes on in another area to say, "Anything with a asterisk is highly advised extras to prevent this problem from happening in the future. Due to the fact the building was built with no extra plywood an water barrier there are no guarantees the elastic membrane and vapor barrier are highly recommended to take the place of the plywood an water barrier to prevent water coming in that penetrates the brick." This appears to be a serious contractor, who added extras, but went to great efforts to explain himself. Yet, your know it all, we're experts, we don't know about the insurance, board, voted to complete this project, with their VOLUNTEERS EXPERTISE, with claims to save us money now, on one of the landmark ASSETS, of the association.
Remember the points I was given about the insurance? What do you think the chances are for anyone who got sick from this exposure, or disposed, probably illegally, of the debris. We'll find out when I get back from vacation, because I'll write whoever I need to, to expose this. Why is it so important? Because this is the standard that your board, operates by, on a regular basis. Most on that board, have more brain power than that, but they don't think you do. Remember, DeMarchi said, "he is tired of legislating for idiots, who break all the rules." They are counting on you, to accept their ridiculous governance, because they think you will continue to act like idiots, and let them proceed.
P.S. As always, verify for yourself by going to the tapes of the meetings, and ask the board to let you "idiots" review the records.
A SECOND P.S.: I'm going on vacation for a week. I will follow up when I get back. A thought came to me after I completed the article. When the gatehouse fix began, almost two years ago, your board breached a document they had all signed in regard to conflict of interest, and awarded a contract to our President. Legal Chair, Garrison claimed there was no conflict, and abused the board member who questioned it. In the mean time, I called the LLR and spoke to them regarding our President, to secure the forms I needed to make a complaint. While I was on the phone they searched their system to see if he was registered as a commercial contractor. They couldn't find him amongst their commercial contractors in SC. They then stated that they didn't know weather a non profit required commercial contractors, or residential. We left it, as it was at the time. This begs the question as to whether they have all the expertise this board claims they have. I don't know. It certainly does not look like it at this point. It does beg the questions as to whether the insurance company would agree with volunteers being covered under the circumstance of MOLD, and whether the board attorney would even OK it. Just commenting, and just wondering, what any prudent person, would think.
The board selected these two contractors for their "expertise", wouldn't you think?????? Expert "B", DeMarchi's old boss, did not elaborate. Expert "P" did! I'll quote expert "P". He states, in writing, "Removal of dry wall and floor coverings. (This will be done by a mold remediation company due to the severity of MOLDS that are growing so this will take care of Gate House Proposal # 1-2 as well." He ends with, "This is a good faith estimate for work described in the bid proposal as well as extras. highly advise dto be done." He goes on in another area to say, "Anything with a asterisk is highly advised extras to prevent this problem from happening in the future. Due to the fact the building was built with no extra plywood an water barrier there are no guarantees the elastic membrane and vapor barrier are highly recommended to take the place of the plywood an water barrier to prevent water coming in that penetrates the brick." This appears to be a serious contractor, who added extras, but went to great efforts to explain himself. Yet, your know it all, we're experts, we don't know about the insurance, board, voted to complete this project, with their VOLUNTEERS EXPERTISE, with claims to save us money now, on one of the landmark ASSETS, of the association.
Remember the points I was given about the insurance? What do you think the chances are for anyone who got sick from this exposure, or disposed, probably illegally, of the debris. We'll find out when I get back from vacation, because I'll write whoever I need to, to expose this. Why is it so important? Because this is the standard that your board, operates by, on a regular basis. Most on that board, have more brain power than that, but they don't think you do. Remember, DeMarchi said, "he is tired of legislating for idiots, who break all the rules." They are counting on you, to accept their ridiculous governance, because they think you will continue to act like idiots, and let them proceed.
P.S. As always, verify for yourself by going to the tapes of the meetings, and ask the board to let you "idiots" review the records.
A SECOND P.S.: I'm going on vacation for a week. I will follow up when I get back. A thought came to me after I completed the article. When the gatehouse fix began, almost two years ago, your board breached a document they had all signed in regard to conflict of interest, and awarded a contract to our President. Legal Chair, Garrison claimed there was no conflict, and abused the board member who questioned it. In the mean time, I called the LLR and spoke to them regarding our President, to secure the forms I needed to make a complaint. While I was on the phone they searched their system to see if he was registered as a commercial contractor. They couldn't find him amongst their commercial contractors in SC. They then stated that they didn't know weather a non profit required commercial contractors, or residential. We left it, as it was at the time. This begs the question as to whether they have all the expertise this board claims they have. I don't know. It certainly does not look like it at this point. It does beg the questions as to whether the insurance company would agree with volunteers being covered under the circumstance of MOLD, and whether the board attorney would even OK it. Just commenting, and just wondering, what any prudent person, would think.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Monday, March 16, 2015
Friday, March 13, 2015
THE WPA FEBRUARY COMPLIANCE REPORT
I have listened to the Compliance Report from a tape of the February WPA board meeting. The overview of the report is provided to the best of my ability. As always, I suggest that you listen to the tape for your own verification. The overview will be typed in blue, and comments will be noted as such, and typed in red.
The Compliance Report was given by Vice President/Legal Chair/Compliance Chair, Garrison. The committee is in the process of going over each section of the policy manual. Each member has been assigned a section. The committee will come up with language to address burning and signage. The policy manual each board member has, and the copy posted on the WPA website is not up to date. While there is a list of changes that were made, the language has not been inserted into the Policy Manual. There are sections like Communications, that include things like yard of the month (brought laughter from the board table), that should be revised, if left in, to include the word "optional". He mentioned the procurement section, that currently requires getting 3 bids on $1,500 projects. He said something about not wanting favoritism, but, when "policy gets in the way of good business, it is bad policy"
COMMENTS: I was disgusted by the report, and by the situation our President, and this board in general has put us in. First, from almost any good faith attempt at good governance, I find fault with President Walton's judgement in naming the Legal Chair, as Compliance Chair. One should be seeking the advice and counsel of the other. Our President has left Garrison, in the comedy situation of saying, "self am I RIGHT, or am I Right? "Yes, self, I always seem to find myself, RIGHT." He has also removed a check and balance, as it relates to governing. It appears nothing short of "conflict of interest", to good governance, and is poor judgement, and cronyism.
Board member, De Marchi, former Compliance Chair, had his committee go through every section of the Policy Manual, and month, after month, made changes to the Policy Manual, failed to publish the proposed changes on the WPA website, between first and second readings, for months, and when it was brought to the board's attention, they mass re-approved the changes. It is at moments like these, that your board in general, for the last few years, have failed to exercise their individual responsibilities as board members, to question, insure following of the governing documents, and raised their hands, and voted yes, for their old boys' network COHESIVENESS.
This board appears to continue to change the Policy Manual, not for the benefit of good governance, but to eliminate safeguards of good governance, and generally good business safe guards, to benefit their private agendas. What do I mean? Consider a few current items. We will be served a new burning policy. Why? Go back to the board's sanitized minutes, or listen to the tapes of the last few years, or review the correspondence file. There weren't any complaints noted regarding burning. We are getting a new burn policy to accommodate Board Member, McMillin's want to burn in a big ugly pot, on his vacant lot.
The Compliance Report was given by Vice President/Legal Chair/Compliance Chair, Garrison. The committee is in the process of going over each section of the policy manual. Each member has been assigned a section. The committee will come up with language to address burning and signage. The policy manual each board member has, and the copy posted on the WPA website is not up to date. While there is a list of changes that were made, the language has not been inserted into the Policy Manual. There are sections like Communications, that include things like yard of the month (brought laughter from the board table), that should be revised, if left in, to include the word "optional". He mentioned the procurement section, that currently requires getting 3 bids on $1,500 projects. He said something about not wanting favoritism, but, when "policy gets in the way of good business, it is bad policy"
COMMENTS: I was disgusted by the report, and by the situation our President, and this board in general has put us in. First, from almost any good faith attempt at good governance, I find fault with President Walton's judgement in naming the Legal Chair, as Compliance Chair. One should be seeking the advice and counsel of the other. Our President has left Garrison, in the comedy situation of saying, "self am I RIGHT, or am I Right? "Yes, self, I always seem to find myself, RIGHT." He has also removed a check and balance, as it relates to governing. It appears nothing short of "conflict of interest", to good governance, and is poor judgement, and cronyism.
Board member, De Marchi, former Compliance Chair, had his committee go through every section of the Policy Manual, and month, after month, made changes to the Policy Manual, failed to publish the proposed changes on the WPA website, between first and second readings, for months, and when it was brought to the board's attention, they mass re-approved the changes. It is at moments like these, that your board in general, for the last few years, have failed to exercise their individual responsibilities as board members, to question, insure following of the governing documents, and raised their hands, and voted yes, for their old boys' network COHESIVENESS.
This board appears to continue to change the Policy Manual, not for the benefit of good governance, but to eliminate safeguards of good governance, and generally good business safe guards, to benefit their private agendas. What do I mean? Consider a few current items. We will be served a new burning policy. Why? Go back to the board's sanitized minutes, or listen to the tapes of the last few years, or review the correspondence file. There weren't any complaints noted regarding burning. We are getting a new burn policy to accommodate Board Member, McMillin's want to burn in a big ugly pot, on his vacant lot.
He brought the policy change recommendation to the board, with nothing to substantiate a need for change.
Why are we getting a new signage change proposal? Again, go back to all the places suggested above, and look for complaints by, or to, this board. There aren't any. Who abused signage? Two board members - McMillin and Walton (not President).
I made a complaint about Walton's signed used boat yard. Mc Millin made the disgusting, red neck, Christmas sign, with my address painted on it, to insult me. It did little, but indicate how crude this board can get, but all residents will get a new signage policy.
Now, Garrison is talking about changing the requirement limit on when they need to seek bids! Someone on that board should have a policy outlined as to how to seek bids. This board has already changed the policy manual to take petty cash from $100, to $200, to $300, for their convenience, because of poor planning, and circumventing a decent process for purchasing. This board already piece meals projects, in avoidance of proper bidding, contract awarding, and real contracts. Look at the gate house and what their piece meal efforts have got us over the last 2 years.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
UPDATE :DOES ANYONE KNOW THIS DOG?
UPDATE: This dog has been reunited with his family, due to the steps taken by a Wedgefield resident, who secured the dog, took it to their own vet to be checked out, and checked to see if there was a chip (not), and found a shelter, until the owner came forward, or a new family could be found. Thanks, friend/resident.
There is an extra few words regarding our pets. As a detective might say regarding this dog, "case closed". Yet, this morning as my husband drove back into the association, another resident was holding onto a dog, standing on the road, hoping someone would claim another dog. It appeared the dog had broken it's leash. Our dogs should have identification, and we need to be more responsible for their safety.
Does anyone know who owns this dog? He has been running in the area of William Screven, in Wedgefield Plantation, for the last 3-4 days. He has also been in the canals, which has proven to be a dangerous situation, for other dogs. He has a collar, but no identification on it. Today, a resident was able to call him to her, and attach a lease. He was being held on a porch, and a call will be placed to the animal shelter. The resident who contained him has since called, he is being transported to a vet, to see if he is chipped, and because he had a bleeding sore. Please message wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com, if you have information.
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
WHEN, OR WILL, THE WPA ANSWER MY REQUEST TO REVIEW RECORDS, AS REQUESTED UNDER STATE LAW, PROVIDED TO ME BY DE MARCHI
HERE IS WHAT I SENT AGAIN TODAY:
| |||||||
Sunday, March 1, 2015
THE WPA SELECTS A NEW GROUNDS CONTRACTOR DURING THE FEB. BOARD MEETING
NOTE: I did not attend the meeting, but I have listened to this part of the meeting tape, as always, I suggest that you listen to the tape to verify it for yourself.
The selection of a grounds contractor was a drawn out affair. Grounds chair, McMillin announced that five bids were received. From what I heard on the tape, the bids were opened at the table. A board member suggested that the bids be copied, so that each board member could review them. While the bids were being copied they moved on to other things.
Once the bids were presented to the board, discussion began. McMillin began by saying, "I want to mention that at no time, did I discuss any terms - not a word. They all got equal..." He went on to report that he asked all the contractors whether they were able to do the scope of work. All contractors were given an opportunity to see the contract format. From what I heard on the tape, McMillin gave each of the bidders a tour of the work areas and stated their associated work requirements. This is a problem, as it opens the possibility of one being provided more information than the other. This is no accusation against McMillin. It would seem if you sent a request for proposal, and felt that a site visit by potential bidders, would aid in understanding the scope of work, that you would state a date and time, a bidders meeting/conference, where all could hear and see the same things, at the same time. It levels the playing field and removes any potential claims of favoritism.
Once again, private lot mowing was included, which generated a lot of discussion. The current grounds vendor was highly criticized. It appeared from the discussion, that not all bidders addressed every aspect of pricing. Please keep the following term in mind, as it will be used in another article. The term is, "not responsive", and it was used by DeMarchi. It appeared to me, that if a contractor didn't address all aspects of pricing in each individual area, they were ruled out. That's fair, if it is applied by this board, every time they are looking at a bid process, and contract award.
In the end, the contract was awarded to Southern Lawns. The board should be congratulated for posting the request for proposal in the Georgetown Times. While we won't go into the complete discussion, DeMarchi held McMillin's feet to the fire during the discussions, regarding the private lot mowing portion of the contract. We, as residents, have subsidized the mowing of private lots in the past, because of McMillin's pricing. Southern Lawns is under contract with the condos, and reports are positive, regarding their work.
NEXT: THE POND BULK HEAD
The selection of a grounds contractor was a drawn out affair. Grounds chair, McMillin announced that five bids were received. From what I heard on the tape, the bids were opened at the table. A board member suggested that the bids be copied, so that each board member could review them. While the bids were being copied they moved on to other things.
Once the bids were presented to the board, discussion began. McMillin began by saying, "I want to mention that at no time, did I discuss any terms - not a word. They all got equal..." He went on to report that he asked all the contractors whether they were able to do the scope of work. All contractors were given an opportunity to see the contract format. From what I heard on the tape, McMillin gave each of the bidders a tour of the work areas and stated their associated work requirements. This is a problem, as it opens the possibility of one being provided more information than the other. This is no accusation against McMillin. It would seem if you sent a request for proposal, and felt that a site visit by potential bidders, would aid in understanding the scope of work, that you would state a date and time, a bidders meeting/conference, where all could hear and see the same things, at the same time. It levels the playing field and removes any potential claims of favoritism.
Once again, private lot mowing was included, which generated a lot of discussion. The current grounds vendor was highly criticized. It appeared from the discussion, that not all bidders addressed every aspect of pricing. Please keep the following term in mind, as it will be used in another article. The term is, "not responsive", and it was used by DeMarchi. It appeared to me, that if a contractor didn't address all aspects of pricing in each individual area, they were ruled out. That's fair, if it is applied by this board, every time they are looking at a bid process, and contract award.
In the end, the contract was awarded to Southern Lawns. The board should be congratulated for posting the request for proposal in the Georgetown Times. While we won't go into the complete discussion, DeMarchi held McMillin's feet to the fire during the discussions, regarding the private lot mowing portion of the contract. We, as residents, have subsidized the mowing of private lots in the past, because of McMillin's pricing. Southern Lawns is under contract with the condos, and reports are positive, regarding their work.
NEXT: THE POND BULK HEAD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)