PLEASE NOTE:
I have taken the majority of changes to the Policy Manual,
presented as first reading during the May WPA Board Meeting, and posted, as
required on the WPA website, and provided TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, the CURRENT
POLICY MANUAL language, with the FIRST
READING language directly below it. Your board failed to provide, for residents’
convenience, this opportunity. COMMENTS
WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE END, AND NOTED AS SUCH.
NUMBER 1:
CURRENT:
5.01 Purchase of Office
Supplies:
1. 5.01.01 It shall be the policy of the WPA to
allow the Secretary or Treasurer to purchase office supplies not to exceed $200 without prior approval of the Board. Refer
to Procurement Policy Section 11.01.01.
FIRST
READING:
5.01 Purchase of Office
Supplies:
1. 5.01.01 It shall be the policy of the WPA to
allow the Secretary or Treasurer to purchase office supplies not to exceed $500 without prior approval of the Board. Refer
to Procurement Policy Section 11.01.01.
NUMBER 2:
CURRENT:
6. OTHER PURCHASES BY
BOARD AND COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON
1. 6.01 The President, Vice President, Secretary,
Treasurer, ARC Chairperson, Legal Chairperson, Drainage Chairperson, Roads
Chairperson, or Grounds Chairperson shall have the right to make purchases up
to $200 without prior approval of the
Board. However, these purchases must be authorized, prior to purchase, by the
signature of one other Executive Board member, and be reported and ratified at
the next regular monthly Board Meeting. Refer to Procurement Policy Section
11.01.03.
FIRST READING:
6. OTHER PURCHASES BY
BOARD AND COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON
6.01
The President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, ARC Chairperson,
Legal Chairperson, Drainage Chairperson, Roads Chairperson, or Grounds
Chairperson shall have the right to make purchases up to $500 without prior approval of the Board provided adequate funds are available in the appropriate
budget and the availability of the funds are confirmed with the Treasurer. Reporting of the transaction shall be made by
the purchaser at the next scheduled Board. Refer to Procurement Policy Section 11.01.03. NOTE: WHY DOESN’T THE WATER AMENITIES CHAIR HAVE
THIS PRIVILEDGE?
NUMBER 3:
CURRENT:
2. 6.02 All purchases in excess of $200 must first be approved at a regular monthly
Board Meeting unless there is an emergency and a telephone survey of a majority
of the
Board grants permission and it is duly noted as to which members were called and who gave their verbal consent. The purchase must then be reported on and ratified at the next regular monthly Board Meeting. Refer to Procurement Policy Section 11.02.01.
Board grants permission and it is duly noted as to which members were called and who gave their verbal consent. The purchase must then be reported on and ratified at the next regular monthly Board Meeting. Refer to Procurement Policy Section 11.02.01.
FIRST READING:
2. 6.02 All purchases in excess of $500 must first be approved at a regular monthly
Board Meeting or at a Special Meeting called that
purpose. . Refer to Procurement Policy Section
11.02.01.
NUMBER 4:
CURRENT:
7. BIDS FOR MINOR AND
MAJOR EXPENDITURES
1. 7.01 It shall be the policy of the WPA to secure
three bids on expenditures exceeding $1,000 when available and prudent. The
Board may waive this requirement when necessary. Refer to Procurement Policy
Section 11.03.
2. 7.02 Major expenditures in excess of $3,000 can
only be made after Board Approval. Refer to Procurement Policy Section 11.04.
FIRST READING:
7. BIDS FOR MINOR AND
MAJOR EXPENDITURES
1. 7.01 It shall be the policy of the WPA to secure
three bids on expenditures exceeding $2,500 when
available and prudent. The Board may waive this requirement when necessary.
Refer to Procurement Policy Section 11.03.
2. 7.02 Major expenditures in excess of $5,000 can only be made after Board Approval.
Refer to Procurement Policy Section 11.04.
NUMBER 5: PLEASE NOTE: If you print out the changes provided on the
WPA website, it could appear that there are more than I have presented
here. # 1thru 4, presented above, also
appear almost in duplicate under Procurement.
That does make sense for continuity in the Policy Manual, but I don’t
find it necessary here, in an article that is already running long. #5 begins in a new area, not detailed above.
11.03.01 CURRENTExpenditures in excess of $1,000 but less than $3,000 can only be made after Board approval. These expenditures require a scope of work to be prepared prior to being submitted to the Board. The scope of work will specify: a) why the work is to be done; b) exactly what is to be accomplished by the expenditure; and c) the measurable results from the work. It is desirable to secure three or more bids for this work; however, if not possible, the Board may accept a single bid for the work. The Board must make every effort to insure that the bid is fair and reasonable.
FIRST READING:
Expenditures in excess of $2,500 but less than $5,000 can only be made after Board approval. These expenditures require a scope of work to be prepared prior to being submitted to the Board. The scope of work will specify: a) why the work is to be done; b) exactly what is to be accomplished by the expenditure; and c) the measurable results from the work. It is desirable to secure three or more bids for this work; however, if not practical, the Board may accept a single bid for the work. NOTE: The following line is deleted from current, in the first reading. The Board must make every effort to insure that the bid is fair and reasonable.
NUMBER 6:
11.04.01 & 11.04.02 CURRENT:
Expenditures in excess of $3,000 are considered major expenditures and can only be made after Board approval. These expenditures require a scope of work to be prepared prior to being submitted to the Board. The scope of work will specify: a) why the work is to be done; b) exactly what is to be accomplished by the expenditure; and c) the measurable results from the work.
If the project is of such a large magnitude that it will require partial payment as specific aspects of the work is accomplished, then deliverables to be accomplished at the end of these milestones must be provided in the scope of work. In the event that a project exceeds $10,000, it is the Board’s responsibility to hire a licensed professional engineer to review the scope of work, the bids, and the completed project.
It is desirable to secure three bids for this work. If this is not possible, the Board may accept a single bid, however, the Board must make every effort to insure that the bid is fair and reasonable. In some instances is there is insufficient expertise on the Board, project review by an engineer will add credibility to the bid.
11.04.01 & 11.04.02 FIRST READING:
Expenditures in excess of $5,000 are considered major expenditures and can only be made after Board approval. These expenditures require a scope of work to be prepared prior to being submitted to the Board. The scope of work will specify: a) why the work is to be done; b) exactly what is to be accomplished by the expenditure; and c) the measurable results from the work.
If the project is of such a large magnitude that it will require partial payment as specific aspects of the work is accomplished, then deliverables to be accomplished at the end of these milestones must be provided in the scope of work. Note: The following underlined lines have been removed completely in the first reading , including the $10,000 specification. In the event that a project exceeds $10,000, it is the Board’s responsibility to hire a licensed professional engineer to review the scope of work, the bids, and the completed project. NOTE: this section now ends with the following statement: A licensed professional engineer may be hired at the board’s discretion.
It is desirable to secure three bids for this work. If this is not practical, the Board may accept a single bid. In some instances if there is insufficient expertise on the Board, project review by an engineer or other qualified professional may be desirable.
COMENTS:
Did the board meet the requirements regarding the posting of the changes? Yes. However, the changes are numerous, and if approved, greatly, and gravely increase this board’s powers as it relates to dollar amounts, contracting, and the hiring of engineers. The requirement for posting the changes, is to give residents the opportunity to review, and comment, prior to a second reading, and possible approval, by the board. While it isn’t an opportunity for you to vote, it is the opportunity to write the board, and possibly influence the board’s vote, if you have concerns. When we vote for by-law changes at the annual meeting, the current language is presented, along with the proposed changes directly below it. I don’t need violins to play, but being forced to find these items in the current Policy Manual, and compare them to the proposed changes, is cumbersome, and takes a lot of time. It could appear that this board doesn’t want our opinion. Why? We have 6-12 members who attend the meetings on a good day. I believe this shoddy presentation of information is just one more indication, of their disrespect for residents, and their counting on your lethargy.
These proposed changes dramatically increase individual board member/committee chairs dollar approval, without proper discussion at the board table. This board piece meals projects now, allowing them to complete projects piece by piece without true discussion, at the board table. Look at the gatehouse. It is 2 ½ years later and it is still a mess, without reported outcomes.
These proposals remove engineering oversight, if they feel they have the expertise. We’ve had good money wasted on failed projects, when they said they had the expertise. Almost always, they claim they have the expertise. Look at the failed road project of 3-4 years ago. When they did get a engineer involved in every aspect, last year, we redid the roads a board claimed had the expertise on the failed project.
Review the wording regarding scope of work, and benchmarked contracts. If you bothered to review these items, on almost all contracts (no one else would call them that), you’d see that there hasn’t been any real bidding process, credible contracts, or sealed bids, on most projects. They haven’t been following the current policies in these areas, why would you give them higher financial approval power, without discussion at the board table, such as it is now? Write and ask the board to allow you to review the request for proposal, bid responses, and contract for the gate house when they awarded our President the contract. When I reviewed these items, the so called contract I was provided was the bid specs, and there wasn’t even a place for the board, or the contractor, to sign, and it contained all three stages, and they were only awarding the first stage. THERE WAS NO TOTAL CONTRACT DOLLAR AMOUNT ON THIS RIDICULOUS DOCUMENT.
Stop, and review, and consider writing the board before they give too much of the farm away.
