Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com. We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it. P.S. If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.
****************************************************************************
Roads chair Anderson reported on his research into speed bumps during the August WPA board meeting. He stated that low impact speed bumps could cost as little as $900 each. He suggested that a question be placed on the annual meeting ballot allowing each member to vote whether they wanted them, or not.
Anderson writes the blog at times, often stating that I never have anything positive to say about any board actions, and that there must be something positive to say about some subject of the board. I give the good with the bad if that is what happened. The good in his report is that he recommends giving all of us an opportunity to vote our opinion. Speed bumps have been brought to the board table twice before, and been voted down by most on this board. Each of those times, it had been a board member, or two who wanted speed bumps. This time, a resident brought their safety concerns to the board during resident comments. A child in that particular household reportedly had been dragged by a car while bike riding with the family. Shortly after, Anderson ran a survey on one of the FaceBook sites for Wedgefield. Two thirds of the sample that voted did not want speed bumps. When Anderson reported that fact during a recent board meeting, but continued to search for speed bump cost information, another resident stood up and asked how come one third of the residents got to tell two thirds what to do.
First, Anderson is to be congratulated for coming up with the suggestion that would take a survey from a sample to a full survey of the residents. It is quite forward thinking, and wouldn't cost the association an added nickel! The annual meeting papers, including proxy must go to every member, why not add a line and expand the survey? That would be fair, and for thinking out of the box for resolution, it is a hit. Quite frankly residents, the board doesn't have to survey, they can make a motion and take a vote. It is legal, and the way it is done.
Don't get nasty because we have to look at the other side of the coin. I'm not saying that his suggestion shouldn't have been made. It is a good idea. However, there was no follow through to make it happen. What's the problem? Anderson, as a board member, and roads chair, could have made a motion from the board table that the question be added to the ballot, sought a second to the motion, which would have brought discussion at the board table, and a vote as to whether it would appear on the ballot. It is a good suggestion, but we should have a move forward on it, rather than it just flapping in the wind of suggestion. You see, the board has continued to investigate and report costs, after two thirds of the residents said no in the sample survey. I do not fault the survey efforts, I do think that once the first survey results came in, and this was suggested, that a door was opened that the majority on the board don't want open, because they will do what they want to anyway, and they lead you to believe that they cared what you had to say.
