Saturday, February 27, 2016
THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER ADDS THE DAILY FISHING BOAT TRACKING REPORT
Due to the tree dumping, dock, and bulkhead bumping, and ramming, we will take pictures of the various boats, that fish outside our back door, to keep a record, including boat registration numbers, of those who fish outside our back door. We enjoy the regular, courteous, activities of fisherman enjoying our canals, but have become weary of those less considerate.
Sunday, February 21, 2016
SOMETIMES, YOU JUST CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP!!!!! HERE IS MCMILLIN'S AUGUST 2013 DISCUSSION REGARDING BUILDING A WPA SHED, AND HE THINKS IT COULD HOUSE WPA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT!!!!!!!! THAT WILL BE NEXT RESIDENTS!!!!!!!!
As I reported earlier, February 2016, was not the first time McMillin spoke about his shed. I don't make these things up! I researched on the blog, and found the article dated Aug. 22, 2013. I've provided quotes from the article below, including the headline, TRANSCRIPTION of McMillin's own words, and portions of my comments. You'll note that in 2013 it was another piece of land, and mentions how grand it would be to buy EQUIPMENT to go in it. In 2016, he doesn't mention the equipment, but don't hold your breath, if he gets away with this, equipment will be in a future budget!
Why so much time spent on this by The Wedgefield Examiner? First, and most important, it isn't the role of the board to physically construct monuments to individual board member dreams/castles, at the expense of good governance, our covenants, and restrictions' Second, every resident would have to view this McMillin monstrosity - his back hand to our governing documents, as they enter our association, and for those residents who live on portions of Wraggs Ferry, and Haig Court - it will be in your back yard. Look at the association map. It will be constructed behind the office building, in the association's vacant lot! I'd start writing letters!
P.S. Don't build a shed. Clear the junk out of the house at the landing and the gate house. Get rid of some of those old decorations. As you drive in, take a look at the gate house which is a land mark piece to our entrance and clean the little trees out of the eves.
Why so much time spent on this by The Wedgefield Examiner? First, and most important, it isn't the role of the board to physically construct monuments to individual board member dreams/castles, at the expense of good governance, our covenants, and restrictions' Second, every resident would have to view this McMillin monstrosity - his back hand to our governing documents, as they enter our association, and for those residents who live on portions of Wraggs Ferry, and Haig Court - it will be in your back yard. Look at the association map. It will be constructed behind the office building, in the association's vacant lot! I'd start writing letters!
START OF QUOTES FROM ARTICLE PUBLISHED
AUG. 22, 2013
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER HAS TRANSCRIBED THE GROUNDS CHAIR'S WORDS. ARE THEY ABOUT TO START BUILDING AGAIN? THE GROUNDS CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MAINTENANCE SHED BUILT ON LAND WE DON'T HAVE ROAD ACCESS TO. DID I REALLY HEAR HIM ASK ABOUT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND USE THE WORD "POOL"
We enter this discussion when the WPA Grounds Chair has capital improvement questions under old business. The board is advised that they each have a projected 2014 budget in their board packets. They are to review it and if they have questions they are to take them to the Treasurer prior to the September board meeting. The board will vote on the 2014 budget at the September meeting.
I have transcribed this section of the board meeting tape to the best of my ability. Listen to the tape yourself at The Wedgefield Times. The tape at that site is clear and posted quickly. Thank you Wedgefield Times! The transcription will be in quotes, underlined and printed in blue ink. Comments will appear in red.
Transcription:
McMillin, "One other issue, I hate to drag this up. We have no where here where we can do any sort of maintenance, or store anything for maintenance. There was talk about the disposal area out there. I don't know if that ever went any where or not. There is some property out there that we could possibly be used to erect some sort of a MAINTENANCE BUILDING that we could possibly use that we could keep like our Christmas decorations in, or if we were TO PURCHASE ANY OF OUR OWN PIECES OF EQUIPMENT....like that. There is a scenario here that WE tossed that if we were to have a truck load of mulch come in we could buy it in quantity and save some money and that sort of thing. There is nothing for that in the budget as well, correct?"
COMMENTS: Yes, we are in red ink - comments. Listen to previous meeting tapes. This kind of thing happens again and again. It could appear that it was a plan of the behind closed doors operations of this old boys network. If you were at the meeting, NOT ONE BOARD MEMBER SAID, 'WHERE DID ANYONE EVER TALK ABOUT A MAINTENANCE BUILDING OR EQUIPMENT AT A MEETING IN THE PRESENCE OF RESIDENTS, SUPPORTED BY A COMMITTEE'S RESEARCH? Most of these board members just let things slide by, so they can place their next idea on the table without interference, or sound back up.
Even if there was road access to this piece of land, why would our association need a maintenance building, maintenance equipment, or a place to store a great deal on mulch, or associated personnel to use such things? We elect board members to oversee our assets, not start home grown operations. Next we'll have to add bull work to board and committee job descriptions - on second thought this is a lot of bull. We should have board members who solicit bids to do our maintenance. A word your board loves - it is precedent here. The precedent here is to contract the work out. Why would we build a building and buy equipment for board members to use? Save a couple hundred dollars on mulch? McMillin kept us two meetings on his current ground maintenance contract, and added mulch and the spoil site to the maintenance contract.
This section of the meeting was disheartening from an administrative, good governance, good boardmanship, perspective. I'm not sure why, but maybe it was just the final icing on this miserable poorly, half baked, Wedgefield administrative cake.
I have transcribed this section of the board meeting tape to the best of my ability. Listen to the tape yourself at The Wedgefield Times. The tape at that site is clear and posted quickly. Thank you Wedgefield Times! The transcription will be in quotes, underlined and printed in blue ink. Comments will appear in red.
Transcription:
McMillin, "One other issue, I hate to drag this up. We have no where here where we can do any sort of maintenance, or store anything for maintenance. There was talk about the disposal area out there. I don't know if that ever went any where or not. There is some property out there that we could possibly be used to erect some sort of a MAINTENANCE BUILDING that we could possibly use that we could keep like our Christmas decorations in, or if we were TO PURCHASE ANY OF OUR OWN PIECES OF EQUIPMENT....like that. There is a scenario here that WE tossed that if we were to have a truck load of mulch come in we could buy it in quantity and save some money and that sort of thing. There is nothing for that in the budget as well, correct?"
COMMENTS: Yes, we are in red ink - comments. Listen to previous meeting tapes. This kind of thing happens again and again. It could appear that it was a plan of the behind closed doors operations of this old boys network. If you were at the meeting, NOT ONE BOARD MEMBER SAID, 'WHERE DID ANYONE EVER TALK ABOUT A MAINTENANCE BUILDING OR EQUIPMENT AT A MEETING IN THE PRESENCE OF RESIDENTS, SUPPORTED BY A COMMITTEE'S RESEARCH? Most of these board members just let things slide by, so they can place their next idea on the table without interference, or sound back up.
Even if there was road access to this piece of land, why would our association need a maintenance building, maintenance equipment, or a place to store a great deal on mulch, or associated personnel to use such things? We elect board members to oversee our assets, not start home grown operations. Next we'll have to add bull work to board and committee job descriptions - on second thought this is a lot of bull. We should have board members who solicit bids to do our maintenance. A word your board loves - it is precedent here. The precedent here is to contract the work out. Why would we build a building and buy equipment for board members to use? Save a couple hundred dollars on mulch? McMillin kept us two meetings on his current ground maintenance contract, and added mulch and the spoil site to the maintenance contract.
This section of the meeting was disheartening from an administrative, good governance, good boardmanship, perspective. I'm not sure why, but maybe it was just the final icing on this miserable poorly, half baked, Wedgefield administrative cake.
P.S. Don't build a shed. Clear the junk out of the house at the landing and the gate house. Get rid of some of those old decorations. As you drive in, take a look at the gate house which is a land mark piece to our entrance and clean the little trees out of the eves.
END OF PORTIONS OF ARTICLE PUBLISHED AUG. 22, 2013
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
HERE ARE YOUR BOARD'S SANITIZED MINUTES FROM THE AUG. 20, 2013 BOARD MEETING:
"Old Business:
The vote to accept the 2014 budget will take place at September meeting.
Larry McMillin stated that there is no money for capital improvements or a storage building, he
stated he would like to have a building constructed for storage at the end of Wraggs Ferry. Jacky
stated that would have to be suggested for the 2015 budget. " COMMENTS: Notice that these sanitized minutes fail to mention that they weren't sure the WPA even owned the land he wanted to put his SHED on, and they didn't have ROAD access to it. They don't include the equipment he spoke about either. YET, THEY LET HIM KEEP GOING, AND VOTE FOR A 2016 BUDGET THAT INCLUDES A SHED, AND LET HIM PLACE IT ON THE FEBRUARY 2016 AGENDA, AND HE'S OFF!
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Saturday, February 20, 2016
WEDGEFIELD RESIDENTS, IT MAY BE TIME TO TAKE ACTION. MOST DO NOT ATTEND BOARD MEETINGS, BUT.....YOU COULD WRITE THE BOARD, BEFORE THEY SURPRISE YOU, WHEN HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF.
Residents, it may be time to take some action, and write the board regarding the illegal grounds maintenance shed McMillin is once again, beating the drums to build. Go back, and read the article published on February 17, on this blog regarding his proposal. He built money to build it, in the 2016 approved (by the board) budget. He has been to Georgetown County to inquire about the permits. He has all the building related specs, and associated costs. He has identified the lot.
When you stay silent, history says, the board will do what it wants, despite our governing documents, and despite lawsuits. What do I mean? Think about the building of the office building. For years, the board played with the resident's heads. They took a survey, and no one wanted it. They'd bring it up, and let it lay, and then one day we all got a letter from the board attorney. The board handled it all in an Executive session of the board, and it was a done deal. We were notified of their actions, not at the board open monthly meeting, but in a letter from their attorney.
On April 23, 2008, the board attorney of record, sent the following:
"Dear Wedgefield Plantation Association Members:
I have been requested, by your Board of Directors, to address two issues resolved at the April 21st Executive session of the Board.
The Board has decided to go forward with construction of an office on property owned by the Association at the corner of Wedgefield and Wraggs Ferry Roads. The use of the Guard Shack is not practical due to its size and is exceptionally dangerous based upon its location. The Association can no longer depend upon the generosity of the present or future owners of the Manor House. The cost for the office is $166,000 plus sits work such as sidewalks, parking, drainage and landscaping. Monthly board meetings will be conducted in this building. Building and site drawings will be posted on WPA bulletin board.
All costs will be paid out of cash assets of the Association. There will be no need to raise assessments to cover these costs."
In the end, despite lawsuits, and settlements, that board, did what they wanted, through a back door, a lawyer - later a board member called the equivalent of an alcoholic from the board table, and at far more expense, than $166,000. I realize that $6,800 is a much smaller expense, but the ridiculous cost calculations, compared to benefit, are the same issue. It is the development of another COMMERCIAL EYE SORE, in a residential community. It is another demolition of our governing documents. The board's hide and seek game is the same. They didn't take construction to a vote at the table, but YOUR BOARD DID BACK DOOR APPROVE IT, WHEN THEY APPROVED THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR IT, in the 2016 budget.
Is this board as sneaky, don't think you are smart enough to notice, as the 2008 board?????? You be the judge, and go back, and read the articles on the blog, and review their words, and actions.
Take the time to write the board, and protest this illegal eyesore! Ask them to place your letter in the correspondence file. Ask them how they could have let this, get this far?
If you do write, and you are so inclined, share your letter with The Wedgefield Examiner -wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com
We'll print your letter here. We always remove your name, to protect the innocent, from retaliation from the board.
If you don't take action, and write, just maybe you'll receive a letter from the board attorney, like the one posted above.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
OUR GROUNDS CHAIR DISCUSSES THE BUILDING OF A STORAGE SHED - HOW CAN HE, AND YOUR BOARD EVEN CONSIDER IT? PREPARE YOURSELF BECAUSE YOUR BOARD PASSED THE 2015 BUDGET, AND IT INCLUDED THE COST OF ERECTING THE SHED. DOES ANYONE ON THIS BOARD READ THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, OR BUDGETS, BEFORE THEY VOTE ON ANYTHING? WHO KNOWS, AS WILD AS THINGS GET IN WEDGEFIELD, MAYBE THE GROUNDS CHAIR WILL DECIDE WE NEED TO BUILD A GREENHOUSE TO SAVE MORE MONEY!
The Wedgefield Examiner has prepared the following report to the best of my ability. I attended the February 16 WPA Board Meeting, and took notes. I highly recommend that you go to The Wedgefield Times, and listen to the tape of the meeting to verify information for yourself. This report is part one, of a two part, Grounds report. COMMENTS will be provided in RED, and noted as such.
Grounds Chair, McMillin starts this segment by saying that he has felt for many years that we need a maintenance storage building. Instead of buying 30 - 40 bales of pine straw at a time, he could buy in quantity, saving delivery charges, etc. We could store old files, and holiday decorating items in it too. He goes on to report that he built $6,500 in the 2015 budget for that purpose. He would like to erect a 20ft. X 26ft. metal building, on a cement slab, with a 9ft. X 7ft. overhead door, and a side door. He acknowledges that his budget falls a little short, but the whole thing could be completed for $6, 810.50. He would place the building in the middle of lot 178, which is located behind the office. He has been to see representatives at Georgetown County, and the permit would be a little more than he anticipated as it is viewed as COMMERCIAL. He is not seeking approval now, as he knows he will have to go through ARC, and fill out paperwork.
Garrison said that he would like to point out, aside from other reservations, that this was not the place to store files. Cline agreed. McMillin said the attic of the office building is full.
COMMENTS:
As I spoke during resident comments, I asked the board how they could even entertain this when you, or I, could not erect this building on a vacant lot, if we owned one. I also thought since it had gone this far, that residents whose back yards are adjacent to the proposed building site, should be considered. Who would want that in their back yard? I also asked why the board had bothered to negotiate a contract/lease with a utility with land at the end of Governor Johnston, pay for a gate, to store his grounds materials, and now this? Garrison, agreed on the point that he, as a owner of a second lot, could not place this building on his vacant lot. It should be noted, that I spoke respectfully, in tone, and manner. During the time that I was speaking on this subject, our Grounds Chair, crossed his arms, made faces, and mouthed words - to disrespect a resident's honest, open, legal, opportunity to speak to the board. Just more of the lack of any professional behavior on the part of this board member.
Before we get any deeper into the comments, here is what our governing documents state about this situation.
FROM THE COVENANTS:
#5: "The lot or lots described herein shall be used for residential purposes exclusively. No structure, except as herein-after provided, shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than one (1) detached single family dwelling and one accessory building which may include a detached private garage and/or servant's quarters, provided the use of such dwelling or accessory building does not overcrowd the site and provide further, that such building is not used for any activity normally conducted as a business. Such accessory building may not be constructed prior to the construction of the main building."
#15: "No trailer, tent, barn, tree house or other similar outbuilding or structure shall be placed on any lot at any time either temporarily or permanently."
In my not so humble opinion, the fact that this subject was even placed on the agenda, let alone on an approved budget, is just more condemnation, as to how far this board will allow our Grounds Chair to go. Have any of them read the governing documents? How did they approve this when they were drafting the budget, AND VOTING ON IT? McMillin refers to the grounds budget, as his. He often refers to the funds in it, as HIS money. It is OUR MONEY. He, and many on this board keep talking about taking this action, and that action to save us money! Really?????? How does this building, and storing PINE STRAW realistically save us, any money, in ANY practical sense?
You have to buy, and pay for delivery on pine straw, for YEARS, to save us any money, on an investment of $6,810.50, plus taxes, insurance, and upkeep on a additional building, that appears to violate our governing documents.
McMillin, is out of control, and has been for a long time, while your board sits ideally by. This is not the first time he talked about a maintenance building. He was at it a few years ago. He won't let go. What do I mean? He's wanted speed bumps at the front of the association, has built ridiculous cases for them at least three times. The board has voted NO! As recent, as last month, he started building a case again!
As to storing holiday decorations, I'd suggest that his committee pair down, clean out, and only buy what they can store.
McMillin's constant claims of saving money, just don't prove themselves out. What he does do, as he is building his kingdom - landmarks at our expense, while ignoring our governing documents, is cut down the number of respectable people who would ever consider running for board, or ever wanting to serve as Grounds Chair. The board is intended to govern, and oversee, not chop down the trees, or mow the lawn, etc. We end the article with the first few sentences of the Bylaws regarding the powers of the board.
"Powers - The property and business of The Association shall be MANAGED by the Board of Directors, which may exercise all CORPORATE powers not specifically prohibited by the South Carolina Statutes, the Articles of Incorporation, or the deed CONDITIONS, COVENANTS & RESTRICTIONS."
No where does it say erect buildings, and do the hands on labor, while failing to govern.
Grounds Chair, McMillin starts this segment by saying that he has felt for many years that we need a maintenance storage building. Instead of buying 30 - 40 bales of pine straw at a time, he could buy in quantity, saving delivery charges, etc. We could store old files, and holiday decorating items in it too. He goes on to report that he built $6,500 in the 2015 budget for that purpose. He would like to erect a 20ft. X 26ft. metal building, on a cement slab, with a 9ft. X 7ft. overhead door, and a side door. He acknowledges that his budget falls a little short, but the whole thing could be completed for $6, 810.50. He would place the building in the middle of lot 178, which is located behind the office. He has been to see representatives at Georgetown County, and the permit would be a little more than he anticipated as it is viewed as COMMERCIAL. He is not seeking approval now, as he knows he will have to go through ARC, and fill out paperwork.
Garrison said that he would like to point out, aside from other reservations, that this was not the place to store files. Cline agreed. McMillin said the attic of the office building is full.
COMMENTS:
As I spoke during resident comments, I asked the board how they could even entertain this when you, or I, could not erect this building on a vacant lot, if we owned one. I also thought since it had gone this far, that residents whose back yards are adjacent to the proposed building site, should be considered. Who would want that in their back yard? I also asked why the board had bothered to negotiate a contract/lease with a utility with land at the end of Governor Johnston, pay for a gate, to store his grounds materials, and now this? Garrison, agreed on the point that he, as a owner of a second lot, could not place this building on his vacant lot. It should be noted, that I spoke respectfully, in tone, and manner. During the time that I was speaking on this subject, our Grounds Chair, crossed his arms, made faces, and mouthed words - to disrespect a resident's honest, open, legal, opportunity to speak to the board. Just more of the lack of any professional behavior on the part of this board member.
Before we get any deeper into the comments, here is what our governing documents state about this situation.
FROM THE COVENANTS:
#5: "The lot or lots described herein shall be used for residential purposes exclusively. No structure, except as herein-after provided, shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than one (1) detached single family dwelling and one accessory building which may include a detached private garage and/or servant's quarters, provided the use of such dwelling or accessory building does not overcrowd the site and provide further, that such building is not used for any activity normally conducted as a business. Such accessory building may not be constructed prior to the construction of the main building."
#15: "No trailer, tent, barn, tree house or other similar outbuilding or structure shall be placed on any lot at any time either temporarily or permanently."
In my not so humble opinion, the fact that this subject was even placed on the agenda, let alone on an approved budget, is just more condemnation, as to how far this board will allow our Grounds Chair to go. Have any of them read the governing documents? How did they approve this when they were drafting the budget, AND VOTING ON IT? McMillin refers to the grounds budget, as his. He often refers to the funds in it, as HIS money. It is OUR MONEY. He, and many on this board keep talking about taking this action, and that action to save us money! Really?????? How does this building, and storing PINE STRAW realistically save us, any money, in ANY practical sense?
You have to buy, and pay for delivery on pine straw, for YEARS, to save us any money, on an investment of $6,810.50, plus taxes, insurance, and upkeep on a additional building, that appears to violate our governing documents.
McMillin, is out of control, and has been for a long time, while your board sits ideally by. This is not the first time he talked about a maintenance building. He was at it a few years ago. He won't let go. What do I mean? He's wanted speed bumps at the front of the association, has built ridiculous cases for them at least three times. The board has voted NO! As recent, as last month, he started building a case again!
As to storing holiday decorations, I'd suggest that his committee pair down, clean out, and only buy what they can store.
McMillin's constant claims of saving money, just don't prove themselves out. What he does do, as he is building his kingdom - landmarks at our expense, while ignoring our governing documents, is cut down the number of respectable people who would ever consider running for board, or ever wanting to serve as Grounds Chair. The board is intended to govern, and oversee, not chop down the trees, or mow the lawn, etc. We end the article with the first few sentences of the Bylaws regarding the powers of the board.
"Powers - The property and business of The Association shall be MANAGED by the Board of Directors, which may exercise all CORPORATE powers not specifically prohibited by the South Carolina Statutes, the Articles of Incorporation, or the deed CONDITIONS, COVENANTS & RESTRICTIONS."
No where does it say erect buildings, and do the hands on labor, while failing to govern.
AS A RESIDENT, I HAD SERIOUS QUESTIONS AFTER YOUR BOARD VOTED TO APPROVE THE SECOND YEAR, OF A RENEWABLE TWO YEAR GROUNDS MAINTENANCE CONTRACT, WITH A 4.6% INCREASE
The Wedgefield Examiner has prepared the following report to the best of my ability. I attended the February 16 WPA Board Meeting, and took notes. I highly recommend that you go to The Wedgefield Times, and listen to the tape of the meeting to verify information for yourself. This report is part one, of a two part, Grounds report. COMMENTS will be provided in RED, and noted as such.
Last night, six board members attended the board meeting - Ebert, Walton (John), Garrison, President Walton, Cline, and McMillin. As Grounds Chair, McMillin gave the Grounds report, and made a motion to renew the second year of the grounds contract, with a 4.6% increase, some small changes, for a total of $37,132.92. Ebert seconded the motion, and the board moved to discussion.
The discussion would leave one to believe that this was a poor performing vendor. McMillin stated that this year, the vendor now knew who they (vendor) were working for, that they work for us, for me (McMillin). He reported that lot maintenance had been a problem last year, and in some cases that they had done NOTHING. They had charged, and we had paid for things that they hadn't done. They had gotten paid in advance.
Garrison questioned the vacant lot mowing. He suggested that there might have to be an additional category of lot added, and associated charges. Garrison, reminded McMillin that this process needed to be started earlier.
Your board unanimously voted to approve the contract renewal with the increase!
COMMENTS:
At the end of each WPA board meeting there is a call from the President for resident comments. I took the opportunity to tell the board how surprised I was in this economic time, that they had approved this contract renewal, let alone with a increase. Why?
*There is a 30 day "out" clause in the contract. With the complaints McMillin made about the vendor regarding their performance last year, my question becomes "why didn't you get rid of them last year?" The lot next to me was mowed once. Several residents wrote about the vacant lot conditions. One resident wrote that the lot near them had reached 5 feet. The vendor must not have been following the contract, because it took them until now to understand who is in charge.
*Where was the sign off for payment for services, last year? The Grounds Chair must have been signing approval, for work that wasn't verified, before a check was cut. When last year, with complaints about the lots coming in regularly, did the Grounds Chair discover the problem? In addition to letters from myself, and others, I had stood up, and discussed the problem during resident comments, in mid year. Where was the rest of the board?
*This vendor, was so in charge, that when one of their trucks died, they left it parked at the end of Governor Johnston for weeks, and the problem was only acknowledged, and action taken, after a resident asked about it during resident comments. At that time, The Grounds Chair was obviously aware, and said he had been telling the vendor to get it out of there for WEEKS! In the moment during the meeting, your board acted unaware - surprised - VERY DOUBTFUL.
*Where is individual thinking by these board members? This decision makes no sense. This looks like nothing less than poor oversight - governance, lack of common sense, and a non performer being treated, like a favored vendor. Where else but here in Wedgefield, can you fail to perform, get your contract renewed, WITH AN INCREASE?
THINK THIS IS BIZARRE, WAIT FOR PART II OF THE GROUNDS REPORT. THE GROUNDS CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO BUILD TO STORE HIS STUFF, AND SAVE US EVEN MORE MONEY (?????)
Last night, six board members attended the board meeting - Ebert, Walton (John), Garrison, President Walton, Cline, and McMillin. As Grounds Chair, McMillin gave the Grounds report, and made a motion to renew the second year of the grounds contract, with a 4.6% increase, some small changes, for a total of $37,132.92. Ebert seconded the motion, and the board moved to discussion.
The discussion would leave one to believe that this was a poor performing vendor. McMillin stated that this year, the vendor now knew who they (vendor) were working for, that they work for us, for me (McMillin). He reported that lot maintenance had been a problem last year, and in some cases that they had done NOTHING. They had charged, and we had paid for things that they hadn't done. They had gotten paid in advance.
Garrison questioned the vacant lot mowing. He suggested that there might have to be an additional category of lot added, and associated charges. Garrison, reminded McMillin that this process needed to be started earlier.
Your board unanimously voted to approve the contract renewal with the increase!
COMMENTS:
At the end of each WPA board meeting there is a call from the President for resident comments. I took the opportunity to tell the board how surprised I was in this economic time, that they had approved this contract renewal, let alone with a increase. Why?
*There is a 30 day "out" clause in the contract. With the complaints McMillin made about the vendor regarding their performance last year, my question becomes "why didn't you get rid of them last year?" The lot next to me was mowed once. Several residents wrote about the vacant lot conditions. One resident wrote that the lot near them had reached 5 feet. The vendor must not have been following the contract, because it took them until now to understand who is in charge.
*Where was the sign off for payment for services, last year? The Grounds Chair must have been signing approval, for work that wasn't verified, before a check was cut. When last year, with complaints about the lots coming in regularly, did the Grounds Chair discover the problem? In addition to letters from myself, and others, I had stood up, and discussed the problem during resident comments, in mid year. Where was the rest of the board?
*This vendor, was so in charge, that when one of their trucks died, they left it parked at the end of Governor Johnston for weeks, and the problem was only acknowledged, and action taken, after a resident asked about it during resident comments. At that time, The Grounds Chair was obviously aware, and said he had been telling the vendor to get it out of there for WEEKS! In the moment during the meeting, your board acted unaware - surprised - VERY DOUBTFUL.
*Where is individual thinking by these board members? This decision makes no sense. This looks like nothing less than poor oversight - governance, lack of common sense, and a non performer being treated, like a favored vendor. Where else but here in Wedgefield, can you fail to perform, get your contract renewed, WITH AN INCREASE?
THINK THIS IS BIZARRE, WAIT FOR PART II OF THE GROUNDS REPORT. THE GROUNDS CHAIR WOULD LIKE TO BUILD TO STORE HIS STUFF, AND SAVE US EVEN MORE MONEY (?????)
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
THERE WILL BE AN ARTICLE BY END OF DAY, FEBRUARY 17TH, ON THE WPA FEBRUARY 16TH BOARD MEETING
WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER. WONDER DOG BRADY, SAYS "STAY TUNED"
Thursday, February 11, 2016
HERE'S ANOTHER RESIDENT LETTER FROM THE CORRESPONDENCE FILE, THAT VIEWED WITH OTHERS IN THE FILE, CAUSE MANY QUESTIONS
I'm providing the following information to the best of my ability. I did not ask for copies of the letters in the Correspondence file, but I took notes. I recommend that you write the board, make an appointment, and review the files yourself for verification. Having reviewed the letters, I have formed an opinion, and will note comments in red.
I reviewed about 30 letters in the file. Approximately 50% of the letters related to poor lot maintenance. Some of the complaints had board response letters attached, and others didn't. One resident wrote letters about compliance, and fines. As I thought through their situation, and your board's apparent actions - there wasn't a board letter to the resident in the file, I couldn't help but wonder how the board could so blatantly go after one resident, while failing to hold other residents feet to our governing documents, then fines, and the collection of fines.
We'll start with what appears to have happened, spoken through the resident letters. The resident was replacing the roof on their house, at least the main part of the house, with the exact same color, and roofing material. The contractor started the work. It appears that the resident was notified by ARC that they hadn't filled out the proper paperwork. The resident apologized, supplied the paper work, and the work continued. It also appears that somewhat later, the resident was notified that they should have paid a $50.00 ARC fee when they supplied their paperwork. Then it appears by the writing, that the resident received notice that they owed $100.00. Since I don't have board responses in the file to review, one can only assume that the second $50.00, is a fine.
It appears from the resident writings, that the resident asked to be forgiven the fine, viewing the lack of following ARC procedure, as not only a mistake, but misunderstanding. It appears that the resident viewed the roof project, as a repair. They were maintaining their roof, and they weren't changing color, material, anything. It also appears that the resident is being threatened through the collection policies, with a lien on their home. The resident states that they have lived here over 2 decades, and paid any billings from the WPA, every time, on time.
Think what you want about the above resident situation with the board, but then consider other situations presented in the file, and your board's apparent failure to act - notice to offending resident, clean up the mess, charge, and fine a resident. In most cases, in fairness to the board, they have a poor (maybe intentional ) filing system - we don't have a response, an appropriate file on how the board proceeded.
Remember, we provided a letter in the file yesterday, - the escrow letter. That individual had written many times, and your board did nothing to the offending party, over a substantial period of time.
Then there is a disturbing dilemma presented in the file. It appears a resident in the canal area, has written the board (more than once), about a poorly maintained lot that includes a tree that is precariously hanging over the canal, and presents inconvenience to boaters on the canal, possible danger of falling onto a boater, or blocking the entire canal, if it falls in. Our board Grounds Chair writes, I'm not sure to who, because - as should be names are blocked out. I'm not sure whether he writes to the complaining resident, or fellow board members. He writes stating that the property is owned by an elected official in the area (He states the title of the elected official, but I have chosen to leave it out, otherwise the potential offending lot owner would easily be identified). He states that the apparent offending lot owner, has threatened to have him arrested if he enters the boundaries of his lot. It appears that the complaining lot owner has asked for contact information, and they are advised by our Grounds Chair to look it up - it will be easy to find because of the person's community title!
COMMENTS:
To the letter writers mentioned above, I'd advise you to go to the office, ask for copies of letters that support the increasing level of concern in this community regarding property maintenance violations, and your board's apparent inconsistency, governing by omission, and careful selection of what violations, and who, they will enforce our governing documents, and relating fines, and the collection process on.
Where is our Compliance Committee?
Where is our Legal Committee?
Where is our Community Liaison?
Where is our PRESIDENT
Why isn't this file complete? There was a time when every letter from a resident held a board response, and follow up stapled to it!
Think this isn't important? Think again! Will a situation on your home front, or lot, make you the next discipline, fine, and collection target, while they ignore selective others? Are you like the lottery game - their next "easy pick number"? It is bigger than that. Go back and read the articles, and review the two documents on the SETTLEMENTS - not RULINGS, of the two "failure to pay", canal lot owners. In general, a board that fails to govern with consistency loses in the court room. This board usually puts a smile face on, calls it a win, sometimes a significant ruling when it is a settlement, and we all lose. To the escrow, and roof writers, remember the term governance by omission.
I reviewed about 30 letters in the file. Approximately 50% of the letters related to poor lot maintenance. Some of the complaints had board response letters attached, and others didn't. One resident wrote letters about compliance, and fines. As I thought through their situation, and your board's apparent actions - there wasn't a board letter to the resident in the file, I couldn't help but wonder how the board could so blatantly go after one resident, while failing to hold other residents feet to our governing documents, then fines, and the collection of fines.
We'll start with what appears to have happened, spoken through the resident letters. The resident was replacing the roof on their house, at least the main part of the house, with the exact same color, and roofing material. The contractor started the work. It appears that the resident was notified by ARC that they hadn't filled out the proper paperwork. The resident apologized, supplied the paper work, and the work continued. It also appears that somewhat later, the resident was notified that they should have paid a $50.00 ARC fee when they supplied their paperwork. Then it appears by the writing, that the resident received notice that they owed $100.00. Since I don't have board responses in the file to review, one can only assume that the second $50.00, is a fine.
It appears from the resident writings, that the resident asked to be forgiven the fine, viewing the lack of following ARC procedure, as not only a mistake, but misunderstanding. It appears that the resident viewed the roof project, as a repair. They were maintaining their roof, and they weren't changing color, material, anything. It also appears that the resident is being threatened through the collection policies, with a lien on their home. The resident states that they have lived here over 2 decades, and paid any billings from the WPA, every time, on time.
Think what you want about the above resident situation with the board, but then consider other situations presented in the file, and your board's apparent failure to act - notice to offending resident, clean up the mess, charge, and fine a resident. In most cases, in fairness to the board, they have a poor (maybe intentional ) filing system - we don't have a response, an appropriate file on how the board proceeded.
Remember, we provided a letter in the file yesterday, - the escrow letter. That individual had written many times, and your board did nothing to the offending party, over a substantial period of time.
Then there is a disturbing dilemma presented in the file. It appears a resident in the canal area, has written the board (more than once), about a poorly maintained lot that includes a tree that is precariously hanging over the canal, and presents inconvenience to boaters on the canal, possible danger of falling onto a boater, or blocking the entire canal, if it falls in. Our board Grounds Chair writes, I'm not sure to who, because - as should be names are blocked out. I'm not sure whether he writes to the complaining resident, or fellow board members. He writes stating that the property is owned by an elected official in the area (He states the title of the elected official, but I have chosen to leave it out, otherwise the potential offending lot owner would easily be identified). He states that the apparent offending lot owner, has threatened to have him arrested if he enters the boundaries of his lot. It appears that the complaining lot owner has asked for contact information, and they are advised by our Grounds Chair to look it up - it will be easy to find because of the person's community title!
COMMENTS:
To the letter writers mentioned above, I'd advise you to go to the office, ask for copies of letters that support the increasing level of concern in this community regarding property maintenance violations, and your board's apparent inconsistency, governing by omission, and careful selection of what violations, and who, they will enforce our governing documents, and relating fines, and the collection process on.
Where is our Compliance Committee?
Where is our Legal Committee?
Where is our Community Liaison?
Where is our PRESIDENT
Why isn't this file complete? There was a time when every letter from a resident held a board response, and follow up stapled to it!
Think this isn't important? Think again! Will a situation on your home front, or lot, make you the next discipline, fine, and collection target, while they ignore selective others? Are you like the lottery game - their next "easy pick number"? It is bigger than that. Go back and read the articles, and review the two documents on the SETTLEMENTS - not RULINGS, of the two "failure to pay", canal lot owners. In general, a board that fails to govern with consistency loses in the court room. This board usually puts a smile face on, calls it a win, sometimes a significant ruling when it is a settlement, and we all lose. To the escrow, and roof writers, remember the term governance by omission.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BOARD. WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO PROTECT THE VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY, AND THE PROTECTION OF AN HOA?
The Wedgefield Examiner has a lot going on. Most would declare that they needed an assistant. My only assistant is Wonder Dog Brady, and he can't type, and for sure can't compose! I owe you a article about the "open" Board Meeting. I've visited the WPA Office, and secured some copies of legal papers. I'm working on a project, on my own, about the dumping of evergreen trees in the canals, to legally make fish beds. Yet, I was struck by a letter in the WPA Correspondence file. It was a subject that I covered earlier, and as the saying goes, "it curled my hair", as I read it. Earlier, I had reported about the resident who had placed their 2016 assessment in escrow. This was reported by Legal Chair Garrison, and I took umbrage, at his response, as he reported from the board table. Why? Because your Legal Chair, prior to entering the Board, blessed as Legal Chair by President Walton, had written residents during the canal dredging drama, along with two other "Bobs", and recommended that residents place their canal dredging assessments (legally voted on by a previous board), in an escrow account. Now, he was reporting that he had told the resident to pay, or be fined! Yet, your board, had failed to live up to the governing documents, in regard to property maintenance.
First, attached to the letter, the resident presents what appear to be legal documents in the establishment of a escrow account, and deposite of $500 for the 2016 assessment, with the sole purpose to pay the assessment, after it is proven that your board has met the stipulations of our governing documents. We start the direct letter language quote shortly after the letter subject introduction.
"at such time that the following occurs:
1) The neglected lot adjacent to me, which I HAVE REPEATEDLY REQUESTED TO BE KEMPT as REQUIRED by the WPA Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions, is cleared and maintained to those standards for a period of at least 120 days without my intervention, and
2) I have received in WRITING, a letter from the WPA, as per the Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions, and will be billed to the property owner, as also established in the Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions. The purpose of this second part is to provide me reasonable assurance that these long-standing lot conditions will no longer occur, as it is obvious the owner will not accept this responsibility himself.
The 2016 funds will remain in escrow, and future assessments will be deposited into same escrow account when invoiced and due, UNTIL such time as the WPA FULFILLS their responsibilities and obligations to ME, or the matter is decided BY A COURT OF PROPER JURISDICTION.
I am VERY DISAPPOINTED that the situation has come to this. This is not the way I ENVISIONED our relationship would be with either our neighbor or the WPA."
COMMENTS:
Well, Well! This is just another resident, who bought property in Wedgefield, with the thought that the board would operate according to the governing documents, and got a "cohesive" board's agenda! I don't know who the resident is. I do believe that they relied on our GOVERNING documents before they bought land here. Many of us have been burned by the promise of protection of our property values, under the governing documents provided to them as they moved forward toward purchase. Poor souls, they failed to acknowledge, or be aware of this current board's agenda.
I have to congratulate the writer! Whether the individual knew of Garrison's writing about escrow accounts, they have hit the nail on the head. Regardless, this brave resident, has tested the board in what appears to be a real legal challenge. Thank you, resident. I wish you luck with this wishy washy - COHESIVE BOARD, can't think for your individual self board, who let's disregard for our governing documents, business, or prudent thought, keep them cohesive. It should be noted, that the board's response to this letter was not included in the Correspondence file. Yet, Garrison, almost humorously, reported at a recent monthly meeting, that he HAD responded (WHERE?), and as I recall, told the resident pay, or be fined, and suffer the full action of the collection policy.
My message to the unknown resident: "Keep up the good work! You have a RIGHT to ask the board to uphold the governing documents - your promise at purchase. I believe that you have a right to withhold your assessment, when your board fails to adhere to our governing documents. If all else fails, get a copy of the 3 Bob's letter recommending escrow accounts. Tell your attorney that the WPA Legal Chair, recommended it, and give them, or the court the letter.
First, attached to the letter, the resident presents what appear to be legal documents in the establishment of a escrow account, and deposite of $500 for the 2016 assessment, with the sole purpose to pay the assessment, after it is proven that your board has met the stipulations of our governing documents. We start the direct letter language quote shortly after the letter subject introduction.
"at such time that the following occurs:
1) The neglected lot adjacent to me, which I HAVE REPEATEDLY REQUESTED TO BE KEMPT as REQUIRED by the WPA Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions, is cleared and maintained to those standards for a period of at least 120 days without my intervention, and
2) I have received in WRITING, a letter from the WPA, as per the Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions, and will be billed to the property owner, as also established in the Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions. The purpose of this second part is to provide me reasonable assurance that these long-standing lot conditions will no longer occur, as it is obvious the owner will not accept this responsibility himself.
The 2016 funds will remain in escrow, and future assessments will be deposited into same escrow account when invoiced and due, UNTIL such time as the WPA FULFILLS their responsibilities and obligations to ME, or the matter is decided BY A COURT OF PROPER JURISDICTION.
I am VERY DISAPPOINTED that the situation has come to this. This is not the way I ENVISIONED our relationship would be with either our neighbor or the WPA."
COMMENTS:
Well, Well! This is just another resident, who bought property in Wedgefield, with the thought that the board would operate according to the governing documents, and got a "cohesive" board's agenda! I don't know who the resident is. I do believe that they relied on our GOVERNING documents before they bought land here. Many of us have been burned by the promise of protection of our property values, under the governing documents provided to them as they moved forward toward purchase. Poor souls, they failed to acknowledge, or be aware of this current board's agenda.
I have to congratulate the writer! Whether the individual knew of Garrison's writing about escrow accounts, they have hit the nail on the head. Regardless, this brave resident, has tested the board in what appears to be a real legal challenge. Thank you, resident. I wish you luck with this wishy washy - COHESIVE BOARD, can't think for your individual self board, who let's disregard for our governing documents, business, or prudent thought, keep them cohesive. It should be noted, that the board's response to this letter was not included in the Correspondence file. Yet, Garrison, almost humorously, reported at a recent monthly meeting, that he HAD responded (WHERE?), and as I recall, told the resident pay, or be fined, and suffer the full action of the collection policy.
My message to the unknown resident: "Keep up the good work! You have a RIGHT to ask the board to uphold the governing documents - your promise at purchase. I believe that you have a right to withhold your assessment, when your board fails to adhere to our governing documents. If all else fails, get a copy of the 3 Bob's letter recommending escrow accounts. Tell your attorney that the WPA Legal Chair, recommended it, and give them, or the court the letter.
Saturday, February 6, 2016
THERE IS GOOD NEWS, AND THERE IS BAD NEWS, REGARDING THE TREE DUMPING IN THE CANALS
First, a lot of people worked making calls, and sending emails, to get to the good news portion of this article. We thanked every one in a previous article, and emails went to all of those who helped.
The good news is, that according to a DNR officer, the men who dumped the trees in the canals, will come today - Saturday, to remove them.
The bad news is, according to DNR regulations/laws, the practice is lawful, and can continue. So the next fisherman, who decides to come in, and make fish beds, will be a problem, a potential risk to boats, and the people who ride in them. The current DNR regulations do not appear to consider, the size of the body of water, or in the case of the canals, who paid to open the water, the increase rate of silting, or the exceleration of the need to pay again, for dredging, that resulted from the public abuse of our canals. In this case, if you consider intention, these guys first tried to dump a truck load of trees, and when that didn't work, they brought a boat load in. What about obstruction of navigation in our canals, for the people who live here, and paid for the dredging? They only had to pay for a fishing license, and a boat registration. SC is full of large bodies of water, where they can make fish beds. These two had to come in through the Black River to bring the trees in! Last summer, we had fisherman in boats, 4-5 days a week. There is no problem with their right to fish. They shouldn't be able to obstruct navigation, and increase the rate of silting.
In our case, the tree was placed in the middle of the canal. The deepest cut. We have about 8 feet of water in the middle at high tide. I don't know how long the tether tie on the tree is, but you can't see it at high tide. At mid tide it shows, at lower tides, it is all out there.
The good news is, that according to a DNR officer, the men who dumped the trees in the canals, will come today - Saturday, to remove them.
The bad news is, according to DNR regulations/laws, the practice is lawful, and can continue. So the next fisherman, who decides to come in, and make fish beds, will be a problem, a potential risk to boats, and the people who ride in them. The current DNR regulations do not appear to consider, the size of the body of water, or in the case of the canals, who paid to open the water, the increase rate of silting, or the exceleration of the need to pay again, for dredging, that resulted from the public abuse of our canals. In this case, if you consider intention, these guys first tried to dump a truck load of trees, and when that didn't work, they brought a boat load in. What about obstruction of navigation in our canals, for the people who live here, and paid for the dredging? They only had to pay for a fishing license, and a boat registration. SC is full of large bodies of water, where they can make fish beds. These two had to come in through the Black River to bring the trees in! Last summer, we had fisherman in boats, 4-5 days a week. There is no problem with their right to fish. They shouldn't be able to obstruct navigation, and increase the rate of silting.
In our case, the tree was placed in the middle of the canal. The deepest cut. We have about 8 feet of water in the middle at high tide. I don't know how long the tether tie on the tree is, but you can't see it at high tide. At mid tide it shows, at lower tides, it is all out there.
HIGH TIDE
IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT IS THERE, YOU COULD GET CAUGHT IN THE TETHER LINE, OR THE TREE TRUNK
MID TIDE
LOWER TIDE
I've told you before, that I don't care if we ever dredge again. I am insulted by the state of South Carolina, claiming the water beds, letting every person here pay, and allowing this travesty. I have some questions for my state officials. I'll work until I get some answers, and hopefully change.
TO THE STATE:
If you can't use current regs, why isn't the size of the water way, and who has paid to keep our state waters open, be considered to make changes to the law? I understand the benefit to the fisherman, but this isn't a lake, river, or large tributary. When I had to pay all that I did, why does someone who paid for nothing but, a fishing license, and boat registration, get to treat the waters I directly paid to open, like this?
You, as my governor, legislators, and enforcement authorities, wanted these waters, wouldn't dredge the canals, and we dredged them allowing them to be navigable. If we let individuals like these two increase the silting, make them unnavigable, will you dredge them, or give them back to the association, whose developer, dug them?
Thursday, February 4, 2016
The Wedgefield Examiner, has received a email from a canal lot owner, with comments on our tree dumping. As always, I have removed the writers name, to protect their identify.
HERE IT IS:
(Please note, that the email when enlarged so you can read it on the blog, often moves the print.)
HERE IT IS:
(Please note, that the email when enlarged so you can read it on the blog, often moves the print.)
Dear Examiner,
As a canal lot owner, I find your recent article and pictures about tree dumping most interesting.
If I remember correctly, the State claimed ownership of the canals as navigable water.
If these yahoos
make it so that you can't navigate in the canals, do they revert back to the HOA?
Years ago, residents traveled in two boats with a chain sunk between them.
I think this help move
silt and loosen vegetation. Maybe the members of the Water Amenities Committee
would do this for trees.
I don't know who was called, but I think that impeding navigation channels may be DHEC.
Good luck
As a canal lot owner, I find your recent article and pictures about tree dumping most interesting.
If I remember correctly, the State claimed ownership of the canals as navigable water.
If these yahoos
make it so that you can't navigate in the canals, do they revert back to the HOA?
Years ago, residents traveled in two boats with a chain sunk between them.
I think this help move
silt and loosen vegetation. Maybe the members of the Water Amenities Committee
would do this for trees.
I don't know who was called, but I think that impeding navigation channels may be DHEC.
Good luck
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
NOTE: AN ADDITIONAL THANK YOU WAS ADDED AT THE TOP OF THIS ARTICLE, ON 2/3 -BOATERS DUMP PINE TREES INTO THE CANAL BEHIND MY HOUSE. DOES ANYONE RECOGNIZE THIS BOAT" A THANK YOU TO SOME BOARD AND A COMMITTEE MEMBER
ADDED 2/3 : A BIG THANK YOU, to BOB GARRISON, for his multiple calls to our home, working with the pictures I had taken so we can identify the boat owner, and taking extra steps to see if we can protect our canals.
AT 5:00 PM this evening, I noticed a boat in the canal loaded with pine trees. I watched, and the two men in the boat began to dump a pine tree in the middle of the canal behind my house. I grabbed my camera, shot a picture, and went out carrying the Wedgefield phone directory, my camera, and a phone, and asked the men what they were doing. One said, "we're making a nice fishing spot for us." I told him to stop, he wouldn't do that, and they dropped the tree in. I told him to get it out. He said, he didn't have to, this was open water. My husband said we were going to call the authorities. I had been dialing people from the board, who might know if they could dump the trees, do what they were doing, or at least tell me how I could stop them.
Some thanks are due to the following people:
*I first called the Garrison home. Mrs. Garrison should be thanked for taking my call, listening to a hectic description of what was happening. Bob, wasn't home, but she tried to calm me.
*I moved on calling Al DeMarchi, and he listened, and suggested my best source would be John Walton. Al, was as helpful as he could be in this situation.
*I called the Walton home, left a message that I had an emergency in the canal, and left a brief message as to what was occurring. Mrs. Walton called me right back, offered a suggestion, and stated that John had recently had surgery. She was helpful.
*I then decided to call Ed Wozniak, Water Amenities Committee member. He got on the phone, and offered advice. Ed hurried and said that he would go out toward the landing, and see if he could spot them. Next, the door bell rang, and Ed, and John Walton (recently out of surgery), came to look the situation over. Ed had seen the boat, with more trees, leaving the canals through the North Channel. They asked if I had the boat registration number, and I told them that I was shook up calling out to those guys, had a camera, and taken a picture, but that I didn't know what I had. They advised me to always try and get the registration number, and call DNR.
I thank each, and everyone of the people mentioned above, for helping me, to the best of their ability, when I was concerned about this situation. Thank you, Mrs. Garrison, Al DeMarchi, Pam & John Walton, and last but not least, Ed Wozniak.
HERE ARE THE PICTURES. I MAYBE ABLE TO GET THE REGISTRATION NUMBERS IF I HAVE THE PICTURES ENLARGED. IN THE MEAN TIME, IF YOU KNOW WHO THIS IS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
AT 5:00 PM this evening, I noticed a boat in the canal loaded with pine trees. I watched, and the two men in the boat began to dump a pine tree in the middle of the canal behind my house. I grabbed my camera, shot a picture, and went out carrying the Wedgefield phone directory, my camera, and a phone, and asked the men what they were doing. One said, "we're making a nice fishing spot for us." I told him to stop, he wouldn't do that, and they dropped the tree in. I told him to get it out. He said, he didn't have to, this was open water. My husband said we were going to call the authorities. I had been dialing people from the board, who might know if they could dump the trees, do what they were doing, or at least tell me how I could stop them.
Some thanks are due to the following people:
*I first called the Garrison home. Mrs. Garrison should be thanked for taking my call, listening to a hectic description of what was happening. Bob, wasn't home, but she tried to calm me.
*I moved on calling Al DeMarchi, and he listened, and suggested my best source would be John Walton. Al, was as helpful as he could be in this situation.
*I called the Walton home, left a message that I had an emergency in the canal, and left a brief message as to what was occurring. Mrs. Walton called me right back, offered a suggestion, and stated that John had recently had surgery. She was helpful.
*I then decided to call Ed Wozniak, Water Amenities Committee member. He got on the phone, and offered advice. Ed hurried and said that he would go out toward the landing, and see if he could spot them. Next, the door bell rang, and Ed, and John Walton (recently out of surgery), came to look the situation over. Ed had seen the boat, with more trees, leaving the canals through the North Channel. They asked if I had the boat registration number, and I told them that I was shook up calling out to those guys, had a camera, and taken a picture, but that I didn't know what I had. They advised me to always try and get the registration number, and call DNR.
I thank each, and everyone of the people mentioned above, for helping me, to the best of their ability, when I was concerned about this situation. Thank you, Mrs. Garrison, Al DeMarchi, Pam & John Walton, and last but not least, Ed Wozniak.
HERE ARE THE PICTURES. I MAYBE ABLE TO GET THE REGISTRATION NUMBERS IF I HAVE THE PICTURES ENLARGED. IN THE MEAN TIME, IF YOU KNOW WHO THIS IS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
NOTE: THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER HAS ADDED SEVERAL NEW ARTICLES IN THE LAST TWO DAYS. THE MOST RECENT IS A RESPONSE, IN WRITING, INCLUDING A STATEMENT FROM LEGAL CHAIR GARRISON, CALLING THE FIRST CANAL DREDGING ASSESSMENT SETTLEMENT "BOGUS"! PERHAPS, HE'LL THROW THAT TERM IN, IN HOPES OF YOU OVERLOOKING THE FACTS THAT YOUR BOARD RELIED ON IT, AND PAID THE SAME REFEREE - NOT JUDGE, TO WRITE A SECOND ONE, AT OUR EXPENSE. WHO IS ON THE LEGAL COMMITTEE? THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE ASSISTING GARRISON IN BRINGING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD TABLE. WHY IS PRESIDENT WALTON CONTINUING TO LET THIS FARCE CALLED LEGAL GO ON? WHY IS YOUR BOARD SO WILLING TO SIT BACK, AND WATCH? HAVE YOU WRITTEN THE BOARD, AND ASKED THEM TO EXPLAIN?
Yes, it truly is Ground Hog Day, everyday in Wedgefield. Don't expect this ground hog to bring good news. It it too difficult to come through the Wedgefield legal, and political DIRT, and the actions of his pictured HANDLERS - your board, appear to want to keep him below the ground, and in the legal shadows!
I RECEIVE AN EMAIL FROM THE BOARD ADVISING ME THAT CAN HAVE COPIES OF THE TWO CANAL DREDGING ASSESSMENT SETTLEMENTS. READ IT FOR YOURSELF, LEGAL CHAIR GARRISON CALLS THE FIRST SETTLEMENT "BOGUS"
| |||||||
LEGAL DEFINITIONS & INFORMATION, REGARDING RULINGS, SETTLEMENTS, JUDGES, AND REFEREES, AND INFORMATION REGARDING WHO PAYS THE REFEREE
The Wedgefield Examiner, has spent time on legal sites reviewing definitions of the words your board has been throwing around, regarding the papers issued by REFEREE Beverly. I say referee, because if you reviewed the documents, that is the title, following his name. DeMarchi, and Garrison, have each argued the term judge. Garrison, has used the term ruling, in regard to the papers, signed by Beverly, who calls himself, REFEREE. Review the definitions, go to legal sites, and search for yourself. In the end, you'll find we have a SETTLEMENT, by a REFEREE, who your board paid twice, on the recommendation of Legal Chair Garrison. Why twice? We'll never know, because your board never divulged from the board table that we had the first settlement, until they were forced to. Then they reluctantly said, even though the first SETTLEMENT bore Beverly name, that he didn't sign it, didn't know who signed it, never investigated who signed it, and moved onto a second settlement, and paid Beverly AGAIN.
THE WHOLE THING SMELLS OF POOR, POSSIBLY MANIPULATED SETTLEMENTS, AT OUR EXPENSE, ON CRITICAL ISSUES, WITH MISREPRESENTATION OF TERMS, AND OUTCOMES, AND WHAT THEY MEAN FOR OUR FUTURE.
THE WHOLE THING SMELLS OF POOR, POSSIBLY MANIPULATED SETTLEMENTS, AT OUR EXPENSE, ON CRITICAL ISSUES, WITH MISREPRESENTATION OF TERMS, AND OUTCOMES, AND WHAT THEY MEAN FOR OUR FUTURE.
Settlement in legal terms refers to when parties to a lawsuit resolve their difference without having a trial. Settlements are negotiated by their parties, usually through their attorneys and/or insurance adjusters, but final approval of a settlement offer must rest with the parties to the lawsuit. A settlement reached just before trial or after a trial or hearing has begun is often "read into the record" and approved by the court so that it can be enforced as a judgment if the terms of the settlement are not complied with. Many states require a settlement conference a few weeks before trial in an effort to achieve settlement with a judge or assigned attorneys to facilitate the process. Settlements often involve the payment of compensation by one party in satisfaction of the other party's claims. The settlement agreement in a civil lawsuit is the document that spells out the terms of an out-of-court compromise.
Out of court settlement or negotiated settlement is the resolution of a dispute initiated and completed outside of the formal judicial process, without judicial intervention, supervision, or approval. An out-of-court settlement provides that the parties relinquish their rights to pursue judicial remedies.
ruling
noun adjudication, award, command, court's finding, decision, decree, determination, edict, finding, findings of fact and conclusions of law, judgment, judicial determination, judicial proclamation,judicial pronouncement, opinion of the court, order, order of the court, pronouncement, resolution, rule, verdict
JUDGE: A public officer chosen or elected to preside over and to administer the law in a court of justice; one who controls the proceedings in a courtroom and decides questions of law or discretion.
Referee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)