I HAVE A COMMENT TO THIS LETTER! COULD WE HAVE A LITTLE HONESTY HERE?
HERE IS RESIDENT/BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON'S LETTER:
Madeline,
I had the opportunity today to get caught up on your blog. You have published a string of articles and letters condemning the idea of the county purchase of the golf course. Several of these letters point out how poorly Georgetown County maintains its public property. This is completely unfair and untrue. Have you ever been to Eight Oaks Park or any of the new baseball/softball facilities the county has added over the past few years? How about the new boat landing? Each town has at least one indoor regulation basketball facility. The Stables tennis complex in Pawleys Island is as nice as any you will find in South Carolina. Hard and clay courts, lighting and a very nice clubhouse. It will rival any country club tennis facility in the Grand Strand area. All of these parks are clean, modern, and well kept. One of your articles included a picture of East Bay Park and the “poor” conditions but failed to mentioned how it is being torn down and re-purposed. How about a little more fairness in your reporting? While we may not be Palm Beach County we are not “poor”. As a lifelong resident of this county I am proud of the progress we have made.There is no reason to believe the county has anything but good intentions with the golf course. Let’s at least hear the man out before we condemn the idea. As I have stated before, I am open to any reasonable idea that will keep it a golf course. Nothing is free. All I read on your blog is negativity. Where are the alternative ideas? All I see is underhanded attacks and propaganda meant to discourage everyone. Is that really what you want?
You may print my name
Adam Anderson
THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER'S RESPONSE:
First, Board Member Anderson, I have not written and posted one negative article about the possible purchase of the golf course by the county. To date, I have no opinion because I need more information to make a good decision for myself. The letters/articles have been sent to the Wedgefield Examiner by the residents - the board's constituency, apparently because they don't feel that they will be heard by their board! As always, I have not edited them. I have removed their names as promised, and printed them as sent. I have not served as their cheerleader, or made comments - in approval, or not. You appear upset that the residents have used the blog to get their thoughts publicly aired. This board has left them no choice. So the residents have chosen to write to this blog that the board claims no one reads, and yet in the last 30 days the blog has had over 4,000 visits, and over 71,000 in a little over 5 years!
Second, when I need answers I research to get them. I called Mr. Tucker and spoke to him at length to get some answers, and encouraged him to speak himself to the residents of Wedgefield. He said he would. I did that after I attended the April WPA Board Meeting, and the board voted to form an adhoc committee to survey some - not all the residents, regarding the possible purchase of the golf course by the county. "SOME" offended any real information coming out of that kind of a survey process.
I respectfully wrote the following to the board on April 24th: "There is obvious interest by the membership regarding the appearance of the Wedgefield Plantation Golf course, and the possible purchase of the course by the county. I, and many other residents would like direct information from a county representative, who would answer our questions with first hand information, provided directly from the source. Additionally, residents are concerned for a number of reasons, about how the board intends to survey, and petition the community for the county. Basically, we all want first hand information, and we want every member surveyed.
Second, when I need answers I research to get them. I called Mr. Tucker and spoke to him at length to get some answers, and encouraged him to speak himself to the residents of Wedgefield. He said he would. I did that after I attended the April WPA Board Meeting, and the board voted to form an adhoc committee to survey some - not all the residents, regarding the possible purchase of the golf course by the county. "SOME" offended any real information coming out of that kind of a survey process.
I respectfully wrote the following to the board on April 24th: "There is obvious interest by the membership regarding the appearance of the Wedgefield Plantation Golf course, and the possible purchase of the course by the county. I, and many other residents would like direct information from a county representative, who would answer our questions with first hand information, provided directly from the source. Additionally, residents are concerned for a number of reasons, about how the board intends to survey, and petition the community for the county. Basically, we all want first hand information, and we want every member surveyed.
Immediately following the April 18th WPA Board Meeting, there were over 1,000 visits to The Wedgefield Examiner, in just a little over 24 hours. Additionally, since then the volume of visits, even on the weekend, has exceeded 100 visits per day, and residents are writing letters to the blog about the potential purchase almost daily, and they are being published. While the board may not like, or wish to acknowledge the blog, it appears that members are turning to it as a vehicle to both get, and put out information. Several residents have contacted me, and I have met with them in small groups, and they want to move forward with a plan to see that we get first hand information, and that every member is surveyed.
To date, I’ve spoken to Brian Tucker, and he has agreed that if a group of residents would like to hear from him, that he is willing to speak to them. The group has suggested that we develop a mailing to every member that would include a cover letter indicating a date time, and place of meeting, and a prepaid post card addressed to Brian Tucker, detailed with a “yes” or “no” on the potential purchase by the county, a place to indicate the # of lots owned by the member, and a signature line. The group is working on the mailing list now, and yes, we have recruited promise of donation of funds for mailing, printing, etc. The overriding question throughout our work has been, “why isn’t our board promoting this kind of open communication, and surveying on an issue that is so important to so many of us?”
This morning, I touched base with some of the people working on the project, and agreed to contact the board, present the fact that Mr. Tucker is willing to meet Wedgefield residents, and ask the board if they would consider taking over notifying every member of a date, and time to hear Mr. Tucker, and at the same time provide a survey tool to every member. Are you willing to do this to unify the sharing of information with every member, and seek the opinion to be shared with the county, from every member? Wouldn’t it be beneficial to the board, all members, in unification and providing answers to the county?"
WHAT IS NEGATIVE ABOUT MY APPROACH? IT WAS AN OPEN, HONEST COMMUNICATION WITH THE BOARD. What I received back was negativity, and a false - no intention of following through, suggestion that I serve on the adhoc committee. Here is a quote from YOUR board response to me:
"I couldn't agree more that we need to work together. And that usually means compromise. I will already assume one of your responses to this letter will be that you cannot work with the existing committee because of its chairperson. To my knowledge Mr. Armistead volunteered to head this effort up. To refuse to work with his committee over a 10 year old disagreement on a completely different issue isn't indicative of a “let's all work together for Wedgefield” attitude. I will guarantee you he be willing to work with you and hear your ideas. So let's ALL put aside our differences and see if we can find some common ground on perhaps the most important issue Wedgefield will ever face."
I RESPONDED BACK TO THE BOARD WITHIN 24 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE BOARD'S COMMUNICATION. HERE ARE THREE QUOTES FROM MY RESPONSE: 1) "First, I welcome the opportunity to be considered by the board, to be a member of the committee. I realize that it is only an invitation to be considered, as the board votes on committee members. Yes, I couldn't agree more that we need to work together, and that usually does mean compromise. That is why I wrote the board." 2) " I agree that we can’t function on rumors. It appeared most of the concerns of the individuals who have written to me, either to have their letters (names removed) published, or stating their concerns, but asking that their writings not be published, or comments on Face Book, were negative regarding the possible county involvement. That is why I took the time to call Mr. Tucker, and the realtor, and have taken calls from residents asking what I knew about this, or that group of people walking or driving on the golf course. I have no stated opinion on the county’s possible purchase. My inquiry has been to the process & value of a survey, and how it would have any value, drove me to make those calls. I found Mr. Tucker was willing to talk, put the possible county’s very early stage consideration of involvement - to put things in perspective to be helpful. It appeared to me, and the people who were working on the project I described, that it would be helpful to have that prospective outlined by the county directly to all residents, to benefit residents’ survey answers." 3) "In the frankness required to work together, you have assumed incorrectly, when you state: “ I will already assume one of your responses to this letter will be that you cannot work with the existing committee because of its chairperson. To my knowledge Mr. Armistead volunteered to head this effort up. To refuse to work with his committee over a 10 year old disagreement on a completely different issue isn't indicative of a “let's all work together for Wedgefield” attitude.” When I wrote the board in a cooperative spirit, I did not even bring that discussion to the table. While your reference to a “10 year old disagreement” does not begin to describe the situation that is documented in WPA records, I suggest in the spirit of working together that we not jump to conclusions of one another’s reactions. Having worked with unions and management in large company shut down situations, providing outplacement facilities, and services for both under the satisfaction of both, I learned to study the issues and personalities of both, meet with them together in meetings, without prejudicing the outcome of common goals. We have common interests and goals, and shouldn’t assume, and taint an open working relationship.
WHAT IS NEGATIVE ABOUT MY APPROACH? IT WAS AN OPEN, HONEST COMMUNICATION WITH THE BOARD. What I received back was negativity, and a false - no intention of following through, suggestion that I serve on the adhoc committee. Here is a quote from YOUR board response to me:
"I couldn't agree more that we need to work together. And that usually means compromise. I will already assume one of your responses to this letter will be that you cannot work with the existing committee because of its chairperson. To my knowledge Mr. Armistead volunteered to head this effort up. To refuse to work with his committee over a 10 year old disagreement on a completely different issue isn't indicative of a “let's all work together for Wedgefield” attitude. I will guarantee you he be willing to work with you and hear your ideas. So let's ALL put aside our differences and see if we can find some common ground on perhaps the most important issue Wedgefield will ever face."
I RESPONDED BACK TO THE BOARD WITHIN 24 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE BOARD'S COMMUNICATION. HERE ARE THREE QUOTES FROM MY RESPONSE: 1) "First, I welcome the opportunity to be considered by the board, to be a member of the committee. I realize that it is only an invitation to be considered, as the board votes on committee members. Yes, I couldn't agree more that we need to work together, and that usually does mean compromise. That is why I wrote the board." 2) " I agree that we can’t function on rumors. It appeared most of the concerns of the individuals who have written to me, either to have their letters (names removed) published, or stating their concerns, but asking that their writings not be published, or comments on Face Book, were negative regarding the possible county involvement. That is why I took the time to call Mr. Tucker, and the realtor, and have taken calls from residents asking what I knew about this, or that group of people walking or driving on the golf course. I have no stated opinion on the county’s possible purchase. My inquiry has been to the process & value of a survey, and how it would have any value, drove me to make those calls. I found Mr. Tucker was willing to talk, put the possible county’s very early stage consideration of involvement - to put things in perspective to be helpful. It appeared to me, and the people who were working on the project I described, that it would be helpful to have that prospective outlined by the county directly to all residents, to benefit residents’ survey answers." 3) "In the frankness required to work together, you have assumed incorrectly, when you state: “ I will already assume one of your responses to this letter will be that you cannot work with the existing committee because of its chairperson. To my knowledge Mr. Armistead volunteered to head this effort up. To refuse to work with his committee over a 10 year old disagreement on a completely different issue isn't indicative of a “let's all work together for Wedgefield” attitude.” When I wrote the board in a cooperative spirit, I did not even bring that discussion to the table. While your reference to a “10 year old disagreement” does not begin to describe the situation that is documented in WPA records, I suggest in the spirit of working together that we not jump to conclusions of one another’s reactions. Having worked with unions and management in large company shut down situations, providing outplacement facilities, and services for both under the satisfaction of both, I learned to study the issues and personalities of both, meet with them together in meetings, without prejudicing the outcome of common goals. We have common interests and goals, and shouldn’t assume, and taint an open working relationship.
Again, I appreciate your email. No response is required, except to let me know, what my next steps are to be considered for the committee."
END OF QUOTES - COMMENTS CONTINUE:
Board Member Anderson, I NEVER HEARD from the board again, after I clearly expressed an interest to serve on the committee the board had formed chaired by resident Armistead.
NOTE: From the approved minutes of the April 18th WPA Board Meeting: "New Business: Bob Garrison stated that if the County did decide to purchase the golf course, it could take at least four (4) months to accomplish that and in the meantime, the grass is growing like crazy. Bob presented a potential Petition to see if the residents are interested in the County owning the golf course. Bob suggested that we get this out street by street. Would the Board agree to circulating this to get an estimate of everyone who is in agreement? Jacky Walton mentioned that we could appoint Roger Armistead as an Ad Hoc Committee to accomplish this task." Additionally in that same answer to the board I asked if they would be interested in two additional names of new residents who would be willing to serve. What is worse is that by the time we got to the May WPA meeting, there was no report during the meeting for the adhoc committee - let alone naming and voting on committee members! Mr. Armistead spoke during resident comments about inviting Mr. Tucker, and his recent email to him, and a meeting where he would speak, but NO mention of a survey - the very item the board made him responsible for during a vote at the April meeting. Once again, it appears our board changed direction with no discussion at the table about what happened to the survey/petition. The mailing regarding a meeting has since gone out, and there was no survey, nor do we know whether it went to every member house hold. Was the board afraid to move forward with a legitimate committee once I said yes, I'd serve? Don't talk to me about negativity. I wasn't, and my board failed all of us. We are back to your hidden agenda, and you are looking for scape goats - I'll never qualify as that, I'm not only not negative on this issue, I got the problem identified correctly, and it is the board! It should be noted that immediately following Mr. Armistead's comments, that I went directly to him, offered any assistance that he might need, and told him that I had spoken quite some time ago to Mr. Tucker, and during our conversation that he had agreed to speak to Wedgefield residents, and that I had immediately notified the board of that opportunity. I further explained that Mr. Tucker spent as much time as needed on our call, and I felt it would benefit all residents to hear him. I fulfilled my commitment to work with Mr. Armistead, BUT ONCE AGAIN THE GAME CHANGED.
END OF QUOTES - COMMENTS CONTINUE:
Board Member Anderson, I NEVER HEARD from the board again, after I clearly expressed an interest to serve on the committee the board had formed chaired by resident Armistead.
NOTE: From the approved minutes of the April 18th WPA Board Meeting: "New Business: Bob Garrison stated that if the County did decide to purchase the golf course, it could take at least four (4) months to accomplish that and in the meantime, the grass is growing like crazy. Bob presented a potential Petition to see if the residents are interested in the County owning the golf course. Bob suggested that we get this out street by street. Would the Board agree to circulating this to get an estimate of everyone who is in agreement? Jacky Walton mentioned that we could appoint Roger Armistead as an Ad Hoc Committee to accomplish this task." Additionally in that same answer to the board I asked if they would be interested in two additional names of new residents who would be willing to serve. What is worse is that by the time we got to the May WPA meeting, there was no report during the meeting for the adhoc committee - let alone naming and voting on committee members! Mr. Armistead spoke during resident comments about inviting Mr. Tucker, and his recent email to him, and a meeting where he would speak, but NO mention of a survey - the very item the board made him responsible for during a vote at the April meeting. Once again, it appears our board changed direction with no discussion at the table about what happened to the survey/petition. The mailing regarding a meeting has since gone out, and there was no survey, nor do we know whether it went to every member house hold. Was the board afraid to move forward with a legitimate committee once I said yes, I'd serve? Don't talk to me about negativity. I wasn't, and my board failed all of us. We are back to your hidden agenda, and you are looking for scape goats - I'll never qualify as that, I'm not only not negative on this issue, I got the problem identified correctly, and it is the board! It should be noted that immediately following Mr. Armistead's comments, that I went directly to him, offered any assistance that he might need, and told him that I had spoken quite some time ago to Mr. Tucker, and during our conversation that he had agreed to speak to Wedgefield residents, and that I had immediately notified the board of that opportunity. I further explained that Mr. Tucker spent as much time as needed on our call, and I felt it would benefit all residents to hear him. I fulfilled my commitment to work with Mr. Armistead, BUT ONCE AGAIN THE GAME CHANGED.
