I was frustrated after the May meeting, more so after the board's haphazard publishing of the proposed changes, and just found "laughter was the best medicine", after the ridiculousness of the June WPA Board Meeting. A creative individual could easily write a long running, comedy sitcom, regarding the antics of the June meeting. I pulled a few key phrases to keep the article from running too long. They are: SHUNNING, POUTING, --- KISSING, APPARENT APPROVAL VOTING WITHOUT READING, AND POOR (POSSIBLY INTENTIONAL) PRESENTATION.
SHUNNING & APPARENT APPROVAL VOTING WITHOUT READING:
Water Amenities Chair, John Walton, stated that he felt he had been SHUNNED. Why? Here is the old policy manual statement, as compared with the new proposed change.
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.
First, read through the Current, and First Reading, provided above. Note the fact that the same board officers, and committee chairs listed in each, have the authority to make purchases. When the Wedgefield Examiner provided this information, WE ASKED, "where's Water Amenities?" Water Amenities Chair, John Walton, should have had opportunity to read through these proposed changes, PRIOR TO THE MAY Board Meeting, and certainly during the review by Compliance, during the MAY Board Meeting. He NEVER SAID A WORD ABOUT IT DURING THE MAY BOARD MEETING! When The Wedgefield Examiner mentions it, by second reading in June, he feels SHUNNED! Really???? Perhaps, as residents, we should feel that he has SHUNNED his duty as a board member, to review, and prepare to question, and vote on a proposed change. This type of theatrical behavior, just contributes to the thought, that these board members vote like puppets on the strings of a few, in hopes that when they have a project, and a vote, that they will get the same kind of blind following.
The situation, becomes even more humorous. Trust me, I attended both the May, and June meetings. Vice President/Legal/Compliance Chair Garrison, adds that he hopes no one took this slight as intentional. He is often the sheep herder, of these type of situations. Not intentional???? Really? Think about it. Read the current, coming from the days of DeMarchi's ride as Compliance Committee Chair. He reorganized the Policy Manual, sending through numerous changes. The language omitting Water Amenities has been on the books for a long time. The Policy Manual is something each of these board members should understand, and USE to guide them. Now, we have Garrison as chair, (Concerned Citizen, Garrison, involved in the canal dredging lawsuits. The canals fall under Water Amenities.) and another reorganization of our Policy Manual, making some pretty important proposed changes, and YOUR BOARD APPEARS TO FAIL TO READ, AND VOTE WITH THOUGHT!
--- KISSING, AND POUTING:
The drama production provided by board member, McMillin, was comic, and could appear to be both revealing of one's nature and maturity, and an indicator of what you get when the old boys' network cohesiveness, doesn't work for him. First, it began to appear during DeMarchi discussion, and call for a vote on the speed bumps. There is too much history here to keep repeating. Briefly, about a year ago, DeMarchi proposed speed bumps, and it didn't go anywhere. A few months ago McMillin proposed speed bumps, and his motion barely got a second. DeMarchi, enters again with a different kind of speed bump, and a motion during the June Meeting. McMillin had originally wanted the speed bumps "to protect his volunteers, and grounds vendor. The motion failed during the June meeting. McMillin sat with arms crossed, scowling.
When we get to the proposed Policy Manual changes, Board Member, Ebert questions a $5,000 amount in one of the proposed changes, saying that that is a lot of money. Discussions go in a number of directions. One of the changes requires that the committee chair verify with the treasurer, that the money they wish to spend is in their budget. Basically, Treasurer, DeMarchi says that he doesn't mind verifying whether the amount is in the committee chairs budget, but he doesn't want it to appear, that he approves of the particular expenditure. As the various discussions continue, McMillin's arms are crossed, he appears to turn red, and it sure looks like a pout! While you can't see his actions on a audio tape, you should listen to his words. He speaks terms like HIS budget, and how he should be able to spend from HIS budget. He is tired of having to kiss---- around here to get a check, etc. He's reminded from the board table that it was the "peoples" money.
POOR (POSSIBLY INTENTIONAL) PRESENTATION:
First, go back to the article noted above. While your board and Compliance Committee, posted the first reading, it is haphazard, and doesn't even provide a comparison avenue, unless you are willing to search the current Policy Manual. If you attended the May meeting, you might have noticed a lot of page flipping (several pages), as the board attempted to understand what the changes that were being presented, were. You'll note that the individual board members don't appear to have studied the proposed changes, prior to the meeting, or John Walton, wouldn't have felt shunned by the time he reached the June meeting for second reading, he would have questioned the language in May. The June meeting, was even more confusing, and I was there. Some of the changes passed, but with the discussion, antics, and page flipping, I'm not sure which ones were passed, and which ones were held, for rewrite.
Today, I thought that I would check the WPA website to see what had passed, and then determine, what was held. If you go to the website, under Information From The Board, you'll find a link to the policy manual. There use to be a grid, that provided that information. Despite the fact that there have been several changes, since Garrison took over the Compliance Committee chairmanship, it hasn't been updated since January! There is no consistency with this board. See example:
First, read through the Current, and First Reading, provided above. Note the fact that the same board officers, and committee chairs listed in each, have the authority to make purchases. When the Wedgefield Examiner provided this information, WE ASKED, "where's Water Amenities?" Water Amenities Chair, John Walton, should have had opportunity to read through these proposed changes, PRIOR TO THE MAY Board Meeting, and certainly during the review by Compliance, during the MAY Board Meeting. He NEVER SAID A WORD ABOUT IT DURING THE MAY BOARD MEETING! When The Wedgefield Examiner mentions it, by second reading in June, he feels SHUNNED! Really???? Perhaps, as residents, we should feel that he has SHUNNED his duty as a board member, to review, and prepare to question, and vote on a proposed change. This type of theatrical behavior, just contributes to the thought, that these board members vote like puppets on the strings of a few, in hopes that when they have a project, and a vote, that they will get the same kind of blind following.
The situation, becomes even more humorous. Trust me, I attended both the May, and June meetings. Vice President/Legal/Compliance Chair Garrison, adds that he hopes no one took this slight as intentional. He is often the sheep herder, of these type of situations. Not intentional???? Really? Think about it. Read the current, coming from the days of DeMarchi's ride as Compliance Committee Chair. He reorganized the Policy Manual, sending through numerous changes. The language omitting Water Amenities has been on the books for a long time. The Policy Manual is something each of these board members should understand, and USE to guide them. Now, we have Garrison as chair, (Concerned Citizen, Garrison, involved in the canal dredging lawsuits. The canals fall under Water Amenities.) and another reorganization of our Policy Manual, making some pretty important proposed changes, and YOUR BOARD APPEARS TO FAIL TO READ, AND VOTE WITH THOUGHT!
--- KISSING, AND POUTING:
The drama production provided by board member, McMillin, was comic, and could appear to be both revealing of one's nature and maturity, and an indicator of what you get when the old boys' network cohesiveness, doesn't work for him. First, it began to appear during DeMarchi discussion, and call for a vote on the speed bumps. There is too much history here to keep repeating. Briefly, about a year ago, DeMarchi proposed speed bumps, and it didn't go anywhere. A few months ago McMillin proposed speed bumps, and his motion barely got a second. DeMarchi, enters again with a different kind of speed bump, and a motion during the June Meeting. McMillin had originally wanted the speed bumps "to protect his volunteers, and grounds vendor. The motion failed during the June meeting. McMillin sat with arms crossed, scowling.
When we get to the proposed Policy Manual changes, Board Member, Ebert questions a $5,000 amount in one of the proposed changes, saying that that is a lot of money. Discussions go in a number of directions. One of the changes requires that the committee chair verify with the treasurer, that the money they wish to spend is in their budget. Basically, Treasurer, DeMarchi says that he doesn't mind verifying whether the amount is in the committee chairs budget, but he doesn't want it to appear, that he approves of the particular expenditure. As the various discussions continue, McMillin's arms are crossed, he appears to turn red, and it sure looks like a pout! While you can't see his actions on a audio tape, you should listen to his words. He speaks terms like HIS budget, and how he should be able to spend from HIS budget. He is tired of having to kiss---- around here to get a check, etc. He's reminded from the board table that it was the "peoples" money.
POOR (POSSIBLY INTENTIONAL) PRESENTATION:
First, go back to the article noted above. While your board and Compliance Committee, posted the first reading, it is haphazard, and doesn't even provide a comparison avenue, unless you are willing to search the current Policy Manual. If you attended the May meeting, you might have noticed a lot of page flipping (several pages), as the board attempted to understand what the changes that were being presented, were. You'll note that the individual board members don't appear to have studied the proposed changes, prior to the meeting, or John Walton, wouldn't have felt shunned by the time he reached the June meeting for second reading, he would have questioned the language in May. The June meeting, was even more confusing, and I was there. Some of the changes passed, but with the discussion, antics, and page flipping, I'm not sure which ones were passed, and which ones were held, for rewrite.
Today, I thought that I would check the WPA website to see what had passed, and then determine, what was held. If you go to the website, under Information From The Board, you'll find a link to the policy manual. There use to be a grid, that provided that information. Despite the fact that there have been several changes, since Garrison took over the Compliance Committee chairmanship, it hasn't been updated since January! There is no consistency with this board. See example:
01/20/15
Section VIII, Add Paragraph 5.02.02
To read as follows: "A grace period with regard to late fees from
February 2 to the last day of February shall be extended to all owners'
accounts without incurring late fees, provided there are no prior
assessments due on that property."
Motion passed
unanimously
Well, that proved to be a dead end search! With more thought, it caused a question. Not all the proposed changes passed. Some needed a rewrite. Will the Compliance Chair, start at first read with the CHANGES, or just move to approve? We'll wait and see, but don't hold your breath. It seems, that sheep herders don't feel they owe the sheep any consideration, or right to questions. They seem to feel that you will blindly follow the herders!
Well, that proved to be a dead end search! With more thought, it caused a question. Not all the proposed changes passed. Some needed a rewrite. Will the Compliance Chair, start at first read with the CHANGES, or just move to approve? We'll wait and see, but don't hold your breath. It seems, that sheep herders don't feel they owe the sheep any consideration, or right to questions. They seem to feel that you will blindly follow the herders!
