EVEN WHEN YOU TRY AND HELP ALL OF WEDGEFIELD, WHILE COOPERATING WITH THIS BOARD, THEY SPEAK OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTHS, AND SEND THEIR SHARKS AFTER YOU TO CHEW YOU UP, AND TRY AND DISCREDIT YOU
This morning, as I reviewed the blog stats as to what articles people were reading, more than a few, had returned to the article republished below. I went back to see what the article was about, and thought about some of board member Anderson's recent comments, and others further back. He has often asked in his writings what I try to do positive for Wedgefield? What is my plan. Couldn't I say something positive? Here is a RECENT, genuine attempt to help cooperatively, and with positive enthusiasm, when he brings OLD - get past it history to muck up and fail to follow through by this board.
The issue I had wrote the board about was something that was important to me, and should be to every person in Wedgefield - the golf course. The board had spoken of the county's interest in purchasing the golf course, and the fact that a survey of residents would have to be conducted, but they wouldn't be surveying everyone. I had been discussing this with a number of small interested groups of people, and contacted the board about our plan of action. (See initial letter to the board further down on the blog.) Anderson had written me back, and suggested that perhaps I'd like to work on the board's adhoc committee. (His letter is posted in late April on the blog.) He gets negative when he writes me, calling on old arguments. This is the positive letter I wrote back to him. My only request for an answer was to tell me how to get involved with the committee, I even offered to supply the board two new residents who would have contributed.
I care about Wedgefield. I've always been willing to work, and I have dedicated many hours of work to benefit Wedgefield. I NEVER HEARD FROM THE BOARD - LET ALONE BOARD MEMBER ANDERSON AGAIN. Forget about me, they kissed off involving two new interested residents - on a critical issue - the golf course, and possible county purchase. I had notified the board that I had talked to Mr. Tucker, and he was willing to speak. I then attended the next board meeting, and the adhoc chair, Mr. Armistead (who Anderson assumed I wouldn't work with) announced he had emailed Tucker, and a date would be set soon. I stopped to offer my help to Armistead, immediately following the meeting. I told him I would do anything to help. Is that uncooperative board member Anderson - am I truly too small of a person - a negative person, who has no plans, puts no work forward? I never heard from Armistead either.
I attended Mr. Tucker's presentation, and wrote a fine, positive article on his presentation. I took notes, and published them. When the Georgetown Times printed theirs, our facts pretty much lined up.
Can't wait till next Tuesday's board meeting to see if "friends of the board" stage another public shaming of the blog.
HERE IS THE ARTICLE:
RESIDENT MADELINE Y. CLAVELOUX RESPONDS TO THE EMAIL RECEIVED FROM THE BOARD EARLIER TODAY (4/26/17)
It is time to stand up, and let other residents know that you are concerned. Your comments, agree or not, are welcome, and will be published without your name. Send your emails to: wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com
HERE IS THE RESPONSE:
April 26, 2017
TO: WPA BOARD
FROM: Madeline Y. Claveloux
RE: COMMUNITY LIAISON EMAIL DATED 4/26/17
CC: Wedgefield Examiner, undisclosed groups of residents
involved in a resident project pertaining to the possible
Wedgefield Golf course sale to the county
Please place a copy in the correspondence file, and distribute to the board.
I appreciate the board’s timely response to my email. Thank you. I took a little time to contact the various people working on the project I described to you, to gather feedback. I, and they, want the unity that the board wants, open communication, and a presentation of unity to the county in any information provided.
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.
The project I described to you has been put on hold. We won’t move forward with printing of a letter, and post card, and mailing. We will continue the work in progress on the mailing list to all members, not as a threat, but because a few of the groups have discussed other projects that may require it. I hope that will confirm for you our interest to cooperate. One of our groups is working with involving new residents in projects. While I stay out of their finite business, two names – fresh perspectives have been suggested of individuals who appear at this distance willing to work to improve Wedgefield. I’m told one has been contacted, and would be willing to be considered for your committee, and another has been left a message. There is no demand, but if the board is interested, I would be happy to provide their names.
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.
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.
