SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT UNTIL I CAN POST AGAIN

Today someone sent this to me.  I felt that it could apply to our situation in Wedgefield.  We have lies presented from our WPA Board table about our governing documents, questionable legal opinion, and judges & rulings that never happened - vs referees, and settlements, etc.  The list could go on.  Note the people jumping off the cliff.  It is kind of how our board votes, without fact, but on the say of one or two other board members.   Enough said.  

DO YOU THINK THAT THE PICTURES PROVIDED BELOW REPRESENT UNCLEAN, UNSIGHTLY, CONDITIONS THAT SUBSTANTIALLY DECREASE THE BEAUTY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE, OR THE SPECIFIC AREA? IF YOU SAY "YES", WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? YOUR BOARD IS DOING NOTHING!

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT I TOOK A MEASURING TAPE WITH ME WHEN I TOOK THE PICTURES, AND THE BULK OF THIS OVERGROWN MESS, MEASURED 62 INCHES!

Yesterday, I had an appointment on John Green.  Once again, as I drove down the street, I couldn’t help but notice the grassy lot pictured below.  A few things should be noted. 1) This lot is located between two well kept – yards, house, etc., properties.  2)  The miserable conditions pictured have cropped up at least two consecutive years.  3) The owner (don’t know who it is), contracts with, pays the contracted amount in advance to the WPA to have the lot maintained – mowed.  4)  The WPA fails to keep the lot to acceptable standards.  The grounds chair, McMillin sets the terms of the contract as to the number of mowings that will be provided in the growing season, and the total cost of the service must be paid in advance, prior to the growing season, as designated by grounds chair, McMillin.  5)  Last year, when questioned about the deplorable conditions of this lot, and others under contract with the WPA, McMillin stated that there were only 4 mowings built into the contract (he develops the contract), and that we had had a particularly rainy season, and that was the problem.  It should be noted that the lot adjacent to my home is under contract with the WPA, and IT WAS ONLY MOWED ONCE IN THE ENTIRE MOWING SEASON LAST YEAR.  6) With all that said, this year – recently, when I asked McMillin how many mowings were built into the contracts for vacant, grassy lots, he said 4, and unfortunately, it was another rainy year.  He further stated that he wanted to build in more mowings this year, but the board wouldn’t let him.  7)  These mowing contracts, which instruct the grounds contractor when to mow, etc., are all built into the overall grounds contract.  Who approves that contract?  THE BOARD DOES!  8)  The ENTIRE BOARD therefore is responsible for the deplorable conditions of general grounds maintenance; many of the individual grassy lots -  unsightly conditions, and are failing to set the standards required in our governing documents.  While I hold the entire board responsible for just raising their cohesive, old boys’ network, hands and approving this stuff, even more blame falls on president Walton, and grounds chair McMillin.  President Walton, who has property, and additional condo property authority, voted to re-up the current grounds contractor’s contract –WITH A RAISE, at the same time he was preparing to fire – very same contractor for the condo area!  Once again, there was no discussion of this at the board table. 

Who, and what is left in miserable circumstances?  You, me, and all of Wedgefield, and our property values.

So what governing documents are they ignoring this time?  Our very CONVENANTS are being ignored, which is the core of the promise of Wedgefield, contained in our deeds.

COVENANTS - # 6:  “IT SHALL BE THE RESONSIBILITY OF EACH LOT OWNER TO PREVENT THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY UNCLEAN, UNSIGHTLY OR UNKEMPT CONDITIONS OF BUILDINGS OR GROUNDS ON SUCH LOT, WHICH SHALL TEND TO SUBSTANTLY DECREASE THE BEAUTY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE OR THE SPECIFIC AREA.”

If you have a comment regarding the following article, whether you agree, or not, or if you'd like to share a letter to the board, The Wedgefield Examiner will remove any identifying information, and share it on the blog.  Email:

wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com

RESIDENT WRITES THE EXAMINER REGARDING CANAL DUMPING PICTURES

If you have a comment regarding the following article, whether you agree, or not, or if you'd like to share a letter to the board, The Wedgefield Examiner will remove any identifying information, and share it on the blog.  Email:
wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com

HERE IS THE RESIDENT EMAIL:

To

wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com

Today at 9:32 AM

Great to see the pictures of canal lot owners dumping their trash into the canal.

And we’re going to contribute $165k to clean out their crap.  One word: INSANE !!!  

Let’s transfer the $165K to a fund to purchase the pool and tennis court and 

mow the golf course.  Money well spent.  Maybe we could have a secret

 meeting the Board to achieve this goal.

Owners dum

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER COMMENTS:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with The Wedgefield 

Examiner.   I hope you wrote the board, and asked that your letter 

be shared with the entire board, and a copy placed in the

correspondence  file.  The $165k is a little off.  It is anticipated

that the canal reserve will be approximately $130,000 at the 

proposed dredging date in 2017, and utilized as long as it doesn't

exceed 1/3 of the dredging expense, and the canal lot owners

fulfill the voluntary, not assessed by the board, contributions.

As you probably have noticed, I find the actions (non really, 

because they have been secretive, non inclusive - all members

not included) of this board to be illegal, failing to use the

tools provided in the governing documents, and yes - insane.

I'm not participating in their voluntary dredging plan until

my board assesses me, and counts all members as equal

participants under the guidance of our governing documents.

Why?  The most important reason beyond demanding legal, 

ethical governance, is that I am concerned about Wedgefield,

and all of the resident members' property.  Despite, a request

three months ago, at a board meeting, by a golf course 

resident, asking the board if they would hold meetings to 

discuss the golf course situation, THEY HAVEN'T scheduled

any.  I reminded the board at the August WPA board meeting,

that the request had been made.  Residents - on the golf course,

and on the canals spoke of their concerns regarding the golf

course.  Sounds like, the golf course lot owners will be treated

like the canal lot owners.  The board will not report, if they are

planning, and what they are planning - if anything, and then

maybe call a meeting shutting out all other members, including

only the golf course residents.  More division, uppity governance

provided by a board who appears to love the POWER, ignoring

governing documents, while the plight of Wedgefield grows worse.

It will be time to vote soon.  Remember the current players who

are running to extend their time on the board - president, Jacky

Walton, legal/compliance chair/vice president, Garrison, and ARC

chair/Johnson.  Vote them off the board, and hope that you will

get three new people who will follow the governing documents,

and work in behalf of Wedgefield.

LATER TODAY, TUES., AUG. 30: WHERE HAS ARC GONE? IF YOU FIND THEM WILL IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

A LETTER TO THE BOARD ABOUT MORE DUMPING IN THE CANALS

CC

wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com

 Today at 5:21 PM

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO THE BOARD AND PLACE A COPY IN THE CORRESPONDENCE FILE.

Board,

On Friday, August 26, in the early afternoon, the vacant grassy lot next to the (removed names) home was mowed.  I observed the mowing.  While I did not personally see the vendor/owner (unsure who mows it),  the canal was
full of cuttings, which appear to be cuttings of weeds, overgrowth, etc.  found in such lots.  I've attached pictures
 of the canal as taken, shortly after the lawn mower noise stopped

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER RE-POSTS A ARTICLE ON LEGAL DEFINITIONS - WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER STATISTICS SHOW THAT SOME READERS ARE GOING BACK TO THE FEB. 2016 ARTICLE

The Wedgefield Examiner is re-posting  "Legal Definitions & Information Regarding Rulings, Settlements, Judges, and Information Regarding Who Pays The Referee", published on The Wedgefield Examiner on February 2, 2016.  Why?  Two reasons - 1)  Wedgefield Examiner backboard stats indicated this morning that at least 5 people had gone back to review this article.  2)  Legal/compliance chair/vice president, Garrison was throwing the word JUDGE around again, as in he had a ruling in regard to canal dredging.

As I went back to review the article on the blog I came across something else that will indicate just how Garrison operates to get his several year agenda through.  This also indicates just how far the board will turn their head, shut their eyes, and let him proceed.  In February 2016, I had written the board and asked to review the Beverly documents.  There were three.  Your board had paid the WPA share of the REFEREE expense.  The first two, each approving INDIVIDUAL assessment, for the last two residents who hadn't paid the $5,000, both signed as I have showed you before, by Beverly.  This should have been a big LEGAL moment for the WPA.  The settlements were never announced from the board table.  The board collects according to the settlement on one of the residents.  They RELIED on the settlement.   Almost 1 1/2 years later, Garrison goes back to the board, and then back to Beverly - paying again, for the now last resident, who had the same SETTLEMENT, as the first, but this 3rd SETTLEMENT disavows INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT.

In February 2016, I receive a answer from the board telling me that I can review the records,  When the WPA office answers me, they include a statement Garrison has sent to the office advising them how to deal with the request.  "On Mon., Feb. 1, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Bob Garrison (removed email address) wrote:  Adam:  I have no objection, she can have copies of both the bogus and the final."  Yet, president Walton continues to name him, LEGAL CHAIR.  This smells so that - enough said.

HERE IS THE ARTICLE:

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.  

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

A judicial officer who presides over civil hearings but usually does not have the authority or power to render judgment.

A referee makes recommendations to the judge or court that appoints the referee but generally does not issue enforceable orders. A referee generally cannot render judgment in a case. The referee's general duty is to provide a report to the appointing judge on the issues of fact or law that prompted the referee's appointment. It has been said that "nothing can originate before a referee, and nothing can terminate with or by the decision of a referee." Referees generally serve at the pleasure of the judge and accordingly hold less judicial authority than the appointing judge. As a judicial officer, a referee is subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct.

1. What do Referees do?
   
   In complex cases, parties can agree to have a Referee help them move their case along. Referees can help the parties exchange papers, and help settle some of the issues so the trial can be shorter. Referees often decide on discovery disputes. Usually, the Referee will recommend a solution to the Court. The Judge can accept the recommendation and make it final. Sometimes, parties ask the Referee to settle the whole case. Parties can give the Referee as much authority as they want. This can make the process go faster. If they want, parties can agree (stipulate) to make a Referee’s decision "binding" (final).
    Who chooses the Referee?
2. The parties can choose their own referee. Or sometimes, the court appoints a referee. If the court appoints a Referee, the parties have 15 days to object in writing if they are not happy with that Referee. 
3. How do we choose a Referee?
   
   Choosing a Referee is just like choosing a mediator. Parties must find someone everyone can agree to use. The ADR Administrator has a list of mediators, neutral evaluators, and private arbitrators who can help you with your case.
4. 
   
5. Who pays for the Referee or Special Master? 
   
   The parties pay the Referee or Special Master. The parties decide on how to divide the fee. 
    
6. What are the qualifications of Referees and Special Masters?
   
   Choose someone who knows about the area of law that is involved in your case. Choose someone with good personal skills and who is a good negotiator. It also helps to choose someone with experience in handling court cases. Choose someone you think will be fair to all parties, who can listen, and who can sort out the different facts and understand the legal questions.