The Wedgefield Examiner provides the following information to the best of my ability. To confirm for yourself, listen to the tape of the WPA Annual Meeting on The Wedgefield Times, or the WPA website, when, and if, they make it available. There haven't been any recordings posted on their website since July of 2015, and no minutes posted since June 2015 (The board's attempt at dumbing down the membership????) Thank you Wedgefield Times for providing your recordings. DON'T MISS THE P.S. AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ARTICLE. I ALMOST FORGOT THE BEST PART OF THE STORY.
Anderson, Roads Chair, reported during the WPA Annual Meeting, that there was approximately $10,000 in savings on the current road project. It seems that with professional contracted engineering oversight, that once the actual work began, that it was noted that some contracted process requirements could be eliminated, resulting in the savings, that will be applied to future additional road projects.
Anderson does a great job as Roads Chair. He always brings his proposals to the table with a plan that includes professional contract engineering, professional development of request for proposal (specs, terms, etc.), professional review of bids & contract development, and professional contract work oversight. He is the ONLY board member who does this. The others claim expertise, their own, and savings, leaving us with a hodgepodge of paper trail (lack of documentation on bidding, contracting, etc.), and poor end result projects. Additionally, some projects come to the board table several times, often with a change in the board person taking responsibility for the project. Such was the case with the gate house (2 years, three bidding processes (?????) and McMillin & DeMarchi, each taking the helm at varying times), the Wedgefield Drainage Project (same two vying for the leadership role), and the pond project (same two at it again). What is the common thread? Each time, they are the self proclaimed experts, will save us money, have the best idea, and contractors, and the paper trail is a mess. What else is common? The declaration from the board table that they couldn't get three bidders, and no one wants to work in Wedgefield. Surprisingly (NOT), when Anderson puts his project in the hands of professionals, we don't have these problems, or declarations, or change of board member in charge. In fact, we have solid management and great project results.
Remember the TV program, The $64,000 Question? Well, here's a question, sometimes it is the $100,000+, the $20,000+, the $10,000+, etc, question. Here it is - IF YOU ARE ANDERSON, WHY WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR HAND, AND VOTE YES, ON ANY PROJECT, PARTICULARLY LARGE SUM PROJECTS, WHEN THE BOARD MEMBER PRESENTING THE PROPOSED MOTION, HADN'T MET EVEN THE MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS, OF THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU CONDUCT YOUR PROJECTS, IN YOUR ROLE AS BOARD MEMBER, PROTECTING OUR ASSETS?
There is a second integrity question, $64,000+ question for the rest of the board, in fact two. (1) If you feel Anderson's project management requirements are sound, how is it that you don't apply them to your projects? (2) If you feel that you all are experts, don't need to go to the expense of professional services, even though not doing so defies what the experts who wrote the reserve study recommend in several places in the document - hire professional engineering, bid & contract development & oversight - WHY DO YOU VOTE YES ON THE ROAD PROJECTS? There is NO integrity, or consistency, in this board's approach to sound governance (??????)!
Members, let yourself off the hook in one declaration from this board. So many of these board members have declared that no one wants to work in Wedgefield, and that is why they can't get bidders. It isn't you, or me. It is this board's hap hazard way of doing business.
P.S. If the savings is approximately $10,000, and my notes are correct. The money saved is about 2 times more, than the engineering and oversight services cost!
