NOTE: I will relate what occurred to the best of my ability. As always, I highly suggest that you go to the tape of the meeting at the WPA website, or The Wedgefield Times, to verify information for yourself. COMMENTS, are provided in red, and noted as such.
New Business - Drainage
The Drainage Chair, DeMarchi presented two projects. The first was on Ricefield and the other on Live Oak. The chairman stated that he had contacted 3 other contractors for bids, but only had one bid for the two jobs. He presented the bid. The project on Ricefield would cost $9,335. The Live Oak project was $10,380. He began to make a motion to approve $20,000 to XX Landscaping (initials changed to protect the contractor) for the two projects. Garrison, Vice President/Legal Chair suggested that he present the projects, one at a time.
DeMarchi, then motioned to award up to $10,500 to the vendor, for the project on Live Oak. There was a second on the motion, and the board moved to discussion. Garrison, asked how this compared to other drainage projects. DeMarchi stated that there really wasn't another comparative, but the project included dirt, and pipe, like like the pond, but was a different project. He said, "I tried desperately to get (name of a vendor), but he wouldn't bid." Anderson, said he lives on Live Oak, and asked where exactly were they talking about? DeMarchi mentioned lot 58, and draining all the way to the canal, and low areas on the road. Ebert asked if we could get the property owner to participate. Anderson, said he would feel better with another bid. McMillin asked if they had talked to the property owner. Ebert, asked if it had to be done right away? Could we wait to get another bid? DeMarchi, says he has been trying for a year. Johnson, asks to look at the bid. President Walton, says that he personally feels that everything possible has been done. The board votes, and the approval is unanimous.
DeMarchi, begins to discuss the project on Richfield, saying that it would cost up to $9,500, involves multiple lots - 10 & 11, and water accumulation. McMillin says there has been flooding in the past. Ebert, mentions that the work calls for a pipe under a drive way, and inquires why it wouldn't be the owners responsibility. There is something said about the biggest problem is that it fills with debris. Ebert, asks again, about the owners' responsibility. Garrison wants to know if we have been in contact with the owner. DeMarchi, says that he has tried, but been unsuccessful. In regard to the drive way pipe, DeMarchi, says if we can grade right, we might not have to do it. Garrison, says that he agrees with Ebert, that replacing the pipe is not our responsibility. Johnson, looks at the bid, and asks, what part of this is pipe? John Walton, says that if we are going to do the job, that we have to do it right. President Walton asks if we're going to sit, and wait, and damage the road we just repaired for $200, because the home owner doesn't want (broken sentence, because it is interrupted). McMillin, asks if they bring it to functioning, could they make the homeowner maintain it? Garrison, (looking at bid) says the problem is that you can't see $200 (pipe under driveway), as real cost. Soon after, the board vote is unanimous to fund the project!
COMMENTS:
I've couldn't contain myself as I typed this mess! Where is consistency, truth to word, good judgement, sound business practice, adherence to governing documents, and the thought by this board, that the membership, as individuals, or a group, just might have a functioning brain????? I forget myself. Some on this board have used terms, to those who dare to question how they operate, such as moronic, or legislating for idiots. The behavior of this board in the two transactions noted above, meets the definition of both those terms!
I attended the meeting. I behave myself in the meetings. I don't shout out, talk to the people next to me, etc. All things that I've seen happen, in the history of attending meetings here over the years. When Ebert questioned the resident's responsibility, I could have cheered! When Garrison questioned the owners responsibility, and the fact that that they couldn't find the expense of the driveway pipe to confirm the related expense on the bid, I was pleased beyond belief! This board had everything they needed demonstrated at the table, to delay these projects, or turn them down! That would have taken each of them considering what was presented, and voting as an individual elected to do all the things noted above - using CONSISTENCY, TRUTH TO WORD, ADHERENCE TO GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, ETC! IT DIDN'T HAPPEN! THEY CAST IT ALL ASIDE, AND COHESIVELY VOTED - A UNANIMOUS VOTE, TO IGNORE THE FACTS THEY HAD GATHERED.
Why bother, take our time at meetings, except for showmanship, to say:
*Isn't it the resident's responsibility?
*I'd feel better if we had another bid.
Why ignore ridiculous statements like:
*If we can get the grade right, we might not have to do it!
*Are we going to sit and wait, and damage the road we just repaired, because the home owner doesn't want...
*Have we been in contact with the owner?
*Three board members who looked at the bid could not find the expense for the driveway.
This is a $20,000 approval! President Walton's question about waiting, and damaging a road we just had fixed, is ridiculous. The fact is that our Drainage Chair has been doing his projects, in the area of his home, and lots first. Small projects, a few hundred dollars here and there, for months, so now we have to hurry to spend $20,000? Did this board review the request for bid process, the specs, the expertise of who designed the specs, or just plain review the specs, the effort to contact the residents involved, and their responsibility according to the governing documents? Apparently NOT.
This business - funny business of "I've tried to get three bids", is an old song, by many of these board members. At one point during this meeting President Walton says that they can't get bids, some have bid before, and didn't get the job. This board has wore potential contractors out with their illegitimate efforts, laughing at bids at the table of genuine skilled contractors, deciding to use volunteers instead, etc. Note, there were three bid requests for the gatehouse over 2 years! Why would good contractors waste their time? The guilt lays at their very feet, under the board table. When we first watched McMillin at the board table, he issued legitimate requests for proposals, sealed bids, and no matter how little the project, he had at least three bidders, often more. He knows how. Look to Anderson. He insists on engineering, oversees real requests for proposals, and a sealed bid, and proper award process. Look at the Water Amenities Committee. When they wanted to spend slightly over $20,000 on a dock for the landing, they had engineering, proper request for proposal, sealed bids, and proper contracting, etc. Look once again, at McMillin. When he put the recent Grounds contract out to bid, he went as far as to post an ad in the newspaper. Some have demonstrated that they know how to do the right thing, but in their cohesiveness, good old boys operating, they'll vote for this mess!
Our Drainage Chair, has made himself, expert, engineer, and judge, as to which residents pay, and those that don't, with no credibility, as it relates to the governing documents. Things got so beyond reason, or common sense, at this meeting, that your board just accepted and voted. For instance, at one point when questions were being asked about whether the owners had been contacted, it was stated that attempts were made, but to no avail. Still later, it was stated that there was a renter in the home, and uncertainty as to who the home owner was. Another stated that the home had been sold about 7 months ago. Our Drainage Chair stated that that might be the reason he wasn't getting a response. Do you seriously believe that a real attempt was made? Do you believe that this board can't find out who owns the home? Who are they sending the assessment billings to, or does this owner owe us money???? If you believe any of this - sorry - crap, there is a bridge in NY that I want to sell you. What is sick, is that this board believes that you would buy the bridge, if they wanted to propose the sale to you.
In PART I, of this article, I asked you if you had heard "a man is as good as his word"? Review this boards words. Go to the tape of the meeting, and verify them for yourself. I don't believe the words of this board hold truth, honesty of character, backing the words that come out of their mouths. As for the one woman on the board, she cackled through a lot of this. Maybe it is a nervous habit, caused by what is being said at the board table.
Stay tuned for PART III of the September 15 WPA Board Meeting Highlights. We'll be covering the 2016 budget, and assessment vote. Prepare yourself, because once again, their words are just thrown in the air, of this polluted Board Meeting.
