THIS SIGN REALLY SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE FRONT ENTRANCE. THIS BOARD, MANY IN THEIR BOARD SEATS FOR 6-9 YEARS, HASN'T LIVED UP TO "GOVERNED BY SPECIAL COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS".
***************************************************
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.
****************************************************************************
As I checked the blog this morning and looked at the stats back page, I noticed that 6 readers had gone all the way back to a May 2012 article. It is provided below. The article refers to a by-law change that was submitted by a resident, voted on and passed at the 2011 annual meeting. Please take the time to read the article, and note the concerns 6-7 months later, regarding your board's failure to follow it. For those of you who bother to go to the board's website regularly, you'll note that 6 years later (throughout the whole period) that your board consistently didn't follow it. Note that since they got away with that, that we no longer have agendas for upcoming meetings posted seven days prior to the meeting. A year and a half ago, they quit posting the official tapes of the meetings. Within the last two months, they removed the approved sanitized minutes, and financials from the site. If you are a regular attendee at monthly meetings, at least you would receive an agenda. The printed agenda handout was not provided at the August board meeting. Just another subtraction from open governance?
The questions posted in the title of today's article are legitimate - even more relevant after hearing Garrison's August legal report. My concern centers on his report regarding by-law submissions for the upcoming annual meeting. He tells us that there are two. One that centers around limiting board members running for consecutive terms. He says it has been submitted before. The second one would be a modification of a 2014 approved by-law change that required the board to contract services from a certified accountant for our accounting. The new submission would change the language to read that the treasurer will contract with a certified public account, or OTHER qualified people. We'll stay in the moment before we go to the history of the 2014 approved (voted in by the membership), and the possible vote on the new modification. As presented the modification will basically take the board right back to where they want to be. It would wash away the intent of the 2014 by-law change. Trust me, it would remove a CPA's touch from the monthly accounting, and we would be back to the board deciding who "OTHER QUALIFIED PEOPLE" are. It is a concern on so many fronts. We would go back to what was termed by the board treasurer leading up to the 2014 change, to the accounting function - all in house, until the audit. There was at that time, a job description for this expert "other qualified people", that didn't even require a high school education. At the same time then, as is the case now, not one of the board member's possess a degree in accounting, or related industry titles. For years, a resident has spent time with the financial reports, and written the board about discrepancies. At many points the board has had to agree that the numbers were wrong. At one point, because it was month after month of acknowledged errors, and it appears that the board was embarrassed, the board treasurer actually went to the concerned enough to write the board resident, and asked the resident if they would be willing to review the financial report, prior to hand out at the meetings!
It should be noted that after the 2014 change, your board did everything that they could to circumvent the intent of the by-law change. They hired a CPA to basically close the books each month, for a sum of about $200. They also hired the very same accountant who closes the books each month, to perform the annual audit! This move equates to a statement of a long ago cartoon character would make, in acknowledgement by himself, about himself - "saw right? saw right?" Why do you let the board do these things, and not question it? Name an industry where this is standard practice. In my 25 years of work for non profits, and on boards of non profits, I never saw this done, and no board - mine as executive director, or any of the others would have allowed this.
Recently, we got a view of once again, of what this board will probably call "other qualified people". Your board announced that they would need a second person - very limited hours, to assist the current paid office secretary, to do financial entries. They voted to move forward, and very shortly, we were notified that they had hired the person. Garrison introduced her as a long time friend, and noted that she had worked in this function for us before. One would have to assume under that ridiculous qualification job description they have been using. I have nothing against this person, so don't start writing me about how bad I am, and what a sincerely sweet, talented person she is. We are hiring people and not looking for miss congeniality! I put out the request for proposal for real CPAs in 2009, interviewed them with the finance committee chair, and brought recommendations to the board for contract approval. The expense was $750.00 per month. No one on this board that is always saving us money, will ever answer to the cost of their current accounting function. That would be the cost of the hours allocated to the current paid staff person for financial enteries, plus the new person, plus the $200 for the end of the month CPA. I would suggest to you that it is no bargain financially, and certainly not to secure financial accounting. For sure if that was the goal, we wouldn't then be hiring the same CPA to approve his own work.
History of the 2014 by-law submission: First it should be noted that if you review the history of the association as it relates to by-law changes, that board members didn't submit by-law amendments. It isn't illegal because board members are residents, and have resident rights. Board member submissions to by-law changes to be brought to a vote pop out in 2010 loud and clear. Who on this board was there at the time? McMillin and Garrison, sat at the board table. Then the board treasurer proposed no less than 5 by-law submissions. They didn't pass, and he resigned from the board the following day.
By-law submissions have been the resident's - the membership's opportunity to try and bring forward positive change, and submit them for a vote. It takes thought, research, and guts to put your efforts up for a vote. When you submit your paperwork for consideration of your by-law change, and it is announced from the board table, the submitting person's name is not announced or put out there. I don't know who submitted the 2014 by-law change, I think I have an idea who it is, but I've never asked anyone at the board who it is. This person felt this change was so necessary that they submitted it in 2012, 2013, and 2014. Obviously, it didn't get the votes to pass it in 2012. By 2013 more residents must have felt it was needed because the vote total was higher. In 2014 the vote moved high enough for it to receive significant resident approval for it to pass!
Why be insulted by the submission for 2017? I firmly believe the submission is authored by a board or committee member, or a co-hort of this board to circumvent the 2014 vote, and go back to this board's manipulation of financial reporting. So why bother to make the effort, or vote on the issue? Consider voting "NO". This apathy is brought to you from watching their manipulation of fact, information, financial moves, and the language of our very basic governing documents - against sound governance, for their personal agendas.
HERE IS AN ACCOUNT FROM 2012 DISCUSSING HOW IMPORTANT -NOT- YOUR BOARD VIEWS, AND IGNORES RESIDENT BY-LAW CHANGE VOTES:
Friday, May 18, 2012
PART V, MAY 15TH BOARD MEETING - CHANGES TO THE POLICY MANUAL
Under Old Business, the Board prepared to vote on several changes to the newly approved Policy Manual. At the 2011 Annual Meeting, the majority of residents voting passed the following By-Law regarding changes to the Policy Manual: "A motion to change the Policy Manual must be presented at an open Board meeting, posted on the WPA website for resident comments, and NOT voted on until the following Board meeting."
FIRST A LITTLE RECENT HISTORY: During the April Meeting a list of changes to the Policy Manual to be voted on at the May Board Meeting were passed out to Board Members, and mention was made that this would be first reading. No one read the list of changes, or even provided a copy of the document to the audience.
Between the April and May Board Meetings I checked the official WPA website several times to see the list of changes to be voted on. I did not find them anywhere on the site. If I missed them during that time period and you have found them, please advise me. I don't believe I missed them. I don't believe they were published, as required.
THE MAY 15TH MEETING: I encourage you to go to The Wedgefield Times and listen to this portion of the meeting tape. I am writing what I saw and heard. You'll find this information under Old Business on the tape.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time going over each of the items voted on, tabled, or sent to the attorney for review. All of those actions did occur during this section of the meeting. My notes indicate at least eight proposed revisions. I find it difficult to use the word proposed. Why? The first change up for vote admittedly appeared to be necessary and minor. It seems that in the section of the manual relating to the use of the office building that a $75.00 fee was inadvertantly added. What was more than interesting is that as the Board Members began to review their Policy Manuals, they had been changed. What was to be proposed and voted on was already changed in their documents!
If you are saying to yourself, "no big deal on this item." I tell you that was the case on 2-3 more items to be voted on. It makes the process look like a sham!
As I advised, listen to the tape for yourself.
THOUGHTS ON THE LARGER PICTURE: Most important, overall, your Board ignored the By-Law change that you and I voted in legitimately and legally. First, they handed information to the Board in April. There was no real first reading in April. Second, they didn't post the list of potential changes on the official website. If you found it, can prove it was posted during the required time - not after this article, I will apologize in a letter to the Board and publish it on the blog. Third, they made some of the proposed changes in the Policy Manual prior to second reading and vote.
To use a term that Garrison used against McBride during the May Meeting, I ask where was due diligence?
DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? Send it to wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com Please note whether you would like your name published with your comments.
FIRST A LITTLE RECENT HISTORY: During the April Meeting a list of changes to the Policy Manual to be voted on at the May Board Meeting were passed out to Board Members, and mention was made that this would be first reading. No one read the list of changes, or even provided a copy of the document to the audience.
Between the April and May Board Meetings I checked the official WPA website several times to see the list of changes to be voted on. I did not find them anywhere on the site. If I missed them during that time period and you have found them, please advise me. I don't believe I missed them. I don't believe they were published, as required.
THE MAY 15TH MEETING: I encourage you to go to The Wedgefield Times and listen to this portion of the meeting tape. I am writing what I saw and heard. You'll find this information under Old Business on the tape.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time going over each of the items voted on, tabled, or sent to the attorney for review. All of those actions did occur during this section of the meeting. My notes indicate at least eight proposed revisions. I find it difficult to use the word proposed. Why? The first change up for vote admittedly appeared to be necessary and minor. It seems that in the section of the manual relating to the use of the office building that a $75.00 fee was inadvertantly added. What was more than interesting is that as the Board Members began to review their Policy Manuals, they had been changed. What was to be proposed and voted on was already changed in their documents!
If you are saying to yourself, "no big deal on this item." I tell you that was the case on 2-3 more items to be voted on. It makes the process look like a sham!
As I advised, listen to the tape for yourself.
THOUGHTS ON THE LARGER PICTURE: Most important, overall, your Board ignored the By-Law change that you and I voted in legitimately and legally. First, they handed information to the Board in April. There was no real first reading in April. Second, they didn't post the list of potential changes on the official website. If you found it, can prove it was posted during the required time - not after this article, I will apologize in a letter to the Board and publish it on the blog. Third, they made some of the proposed changes in the Policy Manual prior to second reading and vote.
To use a term that Garrison used against McBride during the May Meeting, I ask where was due diligence?
DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? Send it to wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com Please note whether you would like your name published with your comments.
