I'm not criticizing the editor, the person who put it together, because you can only work with what you've got. I served as editor of the Wragg for about 3 1/2 years, as a community volunteer. During that time, I saw 4 different board administrations, but the development of the Wragg was the same throughout that period. I'd be notified in advance that it was time to get another edition out. The entire board would be notified of the schedule, including deadlines. Each board officer, and committee chair would be asked to submit a report by a deadline. If I wasn't receiving reports from certain committee chairs, the president got involved. All reports to me were typed as written. A draft Wragg would be sent to every board member for review, and comment. Did each of the reports represent the actions of the board? Often, reports were edited, and changed. The final copy, prior to delivery to the printer, was reviewed by the board one last time. There was often so much information that the printer, and I would discuss how small we could make the print, and make it readable by the average member. Often, we would have to add more pages. No more!
Our governing documents require that the Wragg go out quarterly. This is a good board's opportunity, to provide information to every member. Many of our members aren't at meetings, and this permits a quarterly update, an opportunity to share with all, the undertakings of the board. Apparently very little has been done, according to the Wragg. Really, very little in real administration, has been done from the board table, and the undertakings of the board under, and behind the table won't be written about in the Wragg.
We did learn a few unintended things through omission, if you are an observer of this board's game.
*DRAINAGE: Our drainage chair reports "All major drainage projects have been completed along with the three sinkholes which occurred after the heavy rains. All projects came in under budget. After the last sinkhole was repaired, the contractor notified WPA that the original galvanized steel pipes which are approximately 40 + YEARS OLD ARE DETERIORATING and will need replacement over the next few years. THE RESERVE ACCOUNT for drainage will not provide for this project. The overall scope of the project should be evaluated by an experienced contractor/engineer to determine the extent of the required repairs and the order in which they will be performed. Future assessments and their allocations to reserves will have to be reviewed." Here is what we learn here by omission. If you don't attend meetings, go to the office to review documents, and learn for yourself, they'll just keep you in dark, about key important items. When bitten in the butt, you'll pay - "FUTURE ASSESSMENTS AND RESERVES WILL HAVE TO BE REVIEWED." Go back to the blog, shift through the articles, and you'll find, that the drainage chair, and our president, have told us for years that they didn't need to pay engineers because between them they had the EXPERTISE. Your entire "cohesive" (a word this board likes to use in describing themselves) board sat back and voted time after time for projects that popped into the drainage chair's head, failed to follow the reserve study that we paid for, which recommended several times that this board get engineering support, and professionals to handle their bid process, contract development, and project oversight. In addition to that the drainage chair, who was also the treasurer, played with the reserve study recommendations of fund assignment percentages for reserves. We have had several half assed projects that ate up our funds, without following a comprehensive plan. So members, as a resident recently wrote to the blog regarding the isolation canal meeting, "Bend over folks, you and your wallet are about to get screwed" It should be noted that the drainage chair/treasurer recently resigned, and this was his last report. Just maybe you would have begun to question, if you had attended meetings, vague as they are, and researched in the files in the office .
VICE PRESIDENT REPORT: We'll pull a few things from the report. Direct quotes will be underlined, and in quotation, because I'm going to skip some of the unnecessary fluff. "There have been some questions regarding the state of the golf course and pool." Yes, there have been questions from the floor, during the resident comment section of the meeting. The part that interests me the most is, "There is currently no consideration for the WPA to take over control, operation or purchase of either the golf course or the pool." It should be understood that I'm not advocating for any of this, except that I do believe the community should be called together to discuss how they feel, and what might be done, because we have no assets left in anyone's back yard, - functional canals, or golf course. Additionally, people have had genuine questions, and concerns about property values, and unfulfilled promises, at sale. What is more important, our vice president tells us there is no consideration. That is the clue. How is it that he can say that? When did the board discuss it at the board table presenting the problems, possible solutions, get resident input on a critical issue with information meetings like the illegal canal information meeting, and when did they vote no action? I've either been at the meetings, listened to the tapes, or reviewed the minutes, and nothing has been handled from the board table in our behalf. Yet, a proclamation is made by our vice president/legal chair, as though it is gospel, and he gets to decide. I guess either the entire board doesn't proof the Wragg, or they just continue to allow things to happen, and play dumb to honest, open governance, in our decaying community.
Perhaps, you should consider running for board, and help make Wedgefield a community to be proud of physically, ethically, openly, and honestly.
