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.
Treasurer, DeMarchi had been prepared to offer a 2016 budget based on a $525 assessment at the August meeting. He was asked to prepare a budget based on a $500 assessment for the September board meeting. As he began to speak to the budget he was about to present to the board, he said that he felt there would be a huge shortfall in the future, if we didn't raise the assessment in increments. Cline asked if there would be a short fall for 2016. DeMarchi said no. As the discussion moved on, it was noted that the reserve study indicates the need to incrementally raise assessments, to meet the projected expenses, in maintaining critical areas of the association. He projected serious shortfalls for roads, by 2021. Garrison, said when DeMarchi presented the budget in August, he objected (based on $525 2016 assessment). Garrison said things like, you can't spend what you don't have, future boards will have to decide, assessments will have to go up, etc. There was arguing back and forth. At one point it was mentioned that the Finance Committee invited the board to attend a meeting, as they discussed the 2016 assessment, and budget. Garrison said, "It was the strangest finance committee meeting that I ever went to. Witnessed the committee spending most of the meeting fighting with each other." COMMENT: It could appear that in an effort to avoid holding open meetings, that the board has developed a new plan to keep discussion, and operating in the open for members to observe, at a minimum. The committees of the board now invite the board to a meeting to discuss critical issues, rather than call an open meeting. They've done this with roads, and now finance. It appears that there are only two members to the finance committee, as only two names were mentioned, and the board doesn't provide a list of the names on the website, or minutes from their committee meetings. Why is it, that when the Water Amenities Committee wanted to build a second dock at the landing, that that was an open meeting, and these aren't?
As the discussion continued, John Walton began to question the fact that we paid to have a reserve study done, and now everybody wanted to renege on what it required. Later he asked, "why did we pay to have the reserve study done?" A motion was made to accept the 2016 budget (based on $500 assessment), as presented. The vote to pass the budget was unanimous!!!!
The next item of business was for Garrison to make a motion to set the 2016 assessment at $500. Four board members voted no. They were Walton, Cline, Johnson, and DeMarchi. Someone at the board table asked John Walton how he could have voted yes on the 2016 budget, and he said, "you have to vote yes for something."
COMMENTS: In Part I of the series of articles, I asked if a man is a good as his word? It is a phrase that I have heard since I was a child, and generally entered a discussion, if someone had said something that sounded principled, honest, thought out, and left those hearing it, the impression that that was their genuine thought, feelings, on moving forward, and then operated totally against what was said. When the speaker acted against what they had said, it was said that "they spoke out of both sides of their mouth", and couldn't be trusted. Listen to the tape of the meeting, this seems to apply as to how the board operated during the September meeting. Go back and listen to the tapes of several meetings, and it applies to most of them.
The decisions made at the board table regarding the 2016 budget, and assessment, do conflict with the reserve study. The words spoken by some of the board members, conflict with their vote. The question is as simple as this, how can you unanimously vote yes on a budget based on the assessment, and vote no, for the assessment? If you take it a little deeper into this very meeting, where votes took place regarding $20,000 in drainage projects, if you are DeMarchi - Treasurer & Drainage Chair, how can you speak to what the reserve study requires out of one side of your mouth, as it relates to finance, and ignore it in drainage? What do I mean? The reserve study calls for professional services, as in engineering, many times. We are back to a one bid, expensive project, and when questioned about some of the items on the bid, he says, "If we can get the grade right, we might not have to do it!" He's declared himself as the expert, defying the reserve study, and the word "if" speaks to his expertise. Yet, your board, elected as individual board members, who heard it all, speak out of both sides of their mouths, don't stand by their own words as they vote.
PLEASE NOTE: As I was doing research for this article, I went to The Wedgefield Times, to listen to portions of the tape. I read The Wedgefield Times highlights of the meeting. The editor appears to have spent a good deal of time and thought, on his facts and figures. Take some time and read through the article. It is time well spent. What I found to be interesting, amongst many things, is that in one portion of the article when the editor writes about a visit to his home by DeMarchi, in his role of Treasurer, I was left with asking the same question, I've asked through these articles, is a man as good as his word? I have not conferred with the editor of The Wedgefield Times, nor has he asked for my opinion, or endorsement.
