CANDIDATE CONNIE DOWNS WRITES THE BLOG.

*******************************************************************************

PLEASE NOTE:  I made the following commitment regarding Candidate Night, and established a one time policy to anything anyone wanted to write to the blog, regarding that event.  Here is what I committed to -"I have agreed not to write about one of the candidates, in regard to what he or she said, on this Candidate Night. I will not even write the candidate's name in the article."   I did name candidates Downs, Vasey, and Williams.  Here is the policy regarding anyone who writes the blog regarding Candidate Night - "If you wish to write about candidate answers, resident questions, and what candidates said, or what they did, YOU MUST AGREE TO HAVE YOUR EMAIL PUBLISHED WITH YOUR NAME - this subject only.  I made a commitment and I won't have nasty accusations that I wrote the comments myself."  Candidate Connie Downs has met the requirements.  Since, at times, she refers to Candidate Night, if you have a response, you must allow your name to be published. Email:  wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com.

HERE IS THE EMAIL:

Madeline,

This is Connie Downs, candidate for the 2017 HOA board.  I'd appreciate it if you would post this letter to the community on the Wedgefield Examiner blog site.  Of course you can publish my name.   Thank you in advance for your help.

During the July board meeting, Bob Garrison announced that one of his sitting members was being frivolously sued and commented that incidents like this discourage residents from running for the board.  There is partial truth to this statement.  When you are a board member with disregard for the covenants, bylaws, and policies in addition to a lack of respect toward residents especially those who may disagree with your actions, then yes, you are susceptible to the possibility of lawsuits and rightfully so.

However there is something much deeper that discourages residents from getting involved.  A vast majority of residents don't attend board meetings and many don't bother to vote.  They may be disgusted or they've seen and heard enough to believe their opinion doesn't matter and they can't change things so why waste your time.   To an extent; this is true.   Some simply believe the board is doing a good job and they don't need to get involved.  There are many residents who get involved and vote on an annual basis, but many of these people won't be found sitting in monthly board meetings. A large percentage of the latter group of residents have a strong hold on the community and it's created an unhealthy governing body in Wedgefield that fosters groupthink.    If it were up to them there would be no elections.  They would cut straight to the chase by appointing board members from their social circle or endorse their incumbent term after term.    This seems to be what occurs in Wedgefield.  The strong hold dictates who will sit on the board.     The only way to get a chance on the  Wedgefield  board is to break up this monopoly.  Easy said, but not easy to do.

When I started out on this venture this past summer I got my first clue of what I was up against when I contacted the Nominating Chair, Shirley Peterson with a question about the nominee resume format that was posted on the internet.   During the call I asked for confirmation that 3 seats were up for re-election.  Shirley informed me that Larry McMillan, "John Walton," and Janine Cline were up for re-election, but there "was really only one opening."   I asked for clarification.  What Shirley clearly meant was that Janine wasn't running for re-election and the other two would hold on to their seats.   As I persisted for clarification of her statement, she alluded to the fact that Larry and John were well liked and would be re-elected.   My first thought was the Nominating Chair was biased, she's not doing a good job at encouraging people to run, and there was definitely a conflict of interest with her role since her close circle of friends include Peggy Phillips, (who was later nominated to serve on the election committee) and Larry McMillan himself.   I hung up from the call and my first words were "why am I even bothering?"     It would later be discovered that Inge Ebert is up for re-election, not John Walton so according to Shirley's calculations there would really be two openings since Inge has chosen to leave the board.

I was also informed by Shirley Peterson that in the first week of August, I would be interviewed by the nominating committee.   I wasn't sure why I would need to be interviewed since I am a homeowner in good standing, the boards only requirements to run.   The interview never materialized for some unknown reason, probably because it would be meaningless.

Initially there were 5 candidates for the board.  We would later read in the Wragg that Bill Steiner unfortunately dropped out.  The man who was demonized by the board during the July meeting was no longer interested in a seat.    I have no idea what his mindset is on this topic, but I respect his decision.   It is most likely that we have common thought on this process.
 

It wasn't until the Candidates Night event on October 19th that it sunk in that no matter how hard I tried to prove I was the most qualified candidate for the board, it was never going to happen.    Let me start from the beginning of the event as I was walking in to the Plantation House and came upon Larry McMillan and his posse that included the Nominating Chairwoman and fellow board member Peggy Phillips, (conflict of interest?).    The group marched on with total disregard for my presence.   Typically mature adults acknowledge their opponents and exchange pleasantries; perhaps shake hands.   But that would be asking too much of Larry who typically  ignores residents when they come to the HOA office.  Lack of social grace would fall upon my other opponent Steve Vasey as well.   He and Larry sat next to one another at the head table, together shunning me from the election process.   The posse would also later gasp at some of my responses to resident questions because they didn't fall in line with their groupthink, (conflict of interest?)

I'm running on the platform of improving communication and relations within the community and between residents and the board and increasing the level of transparency of our governing documents.      These apparently are fighting words.

 I will vote for Butch Williams.  He is a stand up man of his word and he will do what's right for Wedgefield.

I will not vote for Larry McMillan.  We had enough of his nonsense and it's time for him to move on.   Nothing he does adds to the value of our homes  and he doesn't bring this community together despite what he says about his accomplishments.   One of his goals is to see that the dredging gets done on the canals.  He's asking for one more term, just long enough to get the dredging done in his backyard.

I will not vote for Steve Vasey.  His performance during the event clearly indicated that he is only interested in overseeing the ARC Committee and writing your own job description doesn't make a good team player.  He's also most interested in getting the dredging done on the canal behind his house, (he's McMillan's neighbor).  Based on what he said, one would believe he was promised the role of ARC Chair.  Mr. Vasey believes that non-canal residents should  happily cooperate because the dredging will increase their home values as well, (but most important... his).    And we may not have much of a say because if the duo of Vasey and McMillan succeed, the board will consist of 5 canal homeowners to 4 non-canal owners.

I'm voting NO on the bylaw amendment.  I'm not insinuating that something shady is going on with HOA finances, I certainly have no reason to believe so.   I just think it's prudent to have a system of checks and balances in place by utilizing a competent and professional CPA to oversee our bookkeeping records.   It would be remiss of our board to have it any other way and if this passes, it opens the door to possible future improprieties.

I'm voting yes for speed bumps.  The more obstacles we put up to hinder people who can't follow the rules or behave appropriately, the better.    The next speeding accident just may involve your innocent child.

At the conclusion of the event I was approached by Bob Garrison who engaged me in a  conversation.    He is apparently upset with my viewpoints.  Overall, we have totally different views on how to successfully bring Wedgefield forward.  I think his board is regressive whereas he believes his board is effective.  Mr. Garrison's first comment was  based on my handout, presentation, and answers during the event.     He believes that I haven't been to enough board meetings to form my own opinion and wanted to know who was influencing me with negative information.  He cut me off when I attempted to respond and said he knew who it was and moved on to his next question.   I want to stop here because as insulting as Mr. Garrison's insinuation was, he apparently perceives me as someones puppet.   The fact is I have been attending board meetings for just over a year.    I guess I wasn't under his radar til recently.  Another fact, I am a college graduate who owned and operated a business for several years contracting with state and federal government social service agencies.   I am more than capable of forming my own opinions and thinking intellectually.   The fact that I was able to retire at the age of 56 is a reflection of my very successful career and abilities.  So I find it insulting for Bob to insinuate that I'm being managed by someone else.

Bob concluded that I didn't think the board was doing a good job.  I honestly told him that a majority of his board members sit through meetings checking their phones, playing with pens, and disengaged.    He had no argument.   Bob twice stated, "you know who runs the board. "  I'm assuming based on observations during the board meetings that he was alluding to himself and he was letting me know who I'd answer to should I win a seat.   He had no argument that his members are complacent and actually believes that's how a smooth board operates.   It's evident  to anyone who heard me speak that night that Bob won't be pulling my strings.   It was also clear to me at this point that I wasn't the member Bob wanted on his team because I don't stand in line with others unless it's for the right reason..

I also had a  brief discussion with Bob about our convenants and homeowner violations that devalue Wedgefield homes.  I specifically mentioned homeowners who don't maintain their properties and collect piles of junk in their yards.     Mr. Garrison's response was, " imagine having to look out your window at that."   Not the response I was hoping to hear from the VP of our board when it comes to the upkeep of our community and the value of my property.

Bob doesn't agree with my assessment that the board lacks transparency.  Sadly enough, he believes they do a good job of putting the information out there for us, or perhaps that's his story.

Bob made it known that if it were up to him, there would be no phone directories, HOA website, or Welcome Committee.  This was disturbing to me since communication is an issue that I was hoping to rectify.   It's also disturbing to think that a board member would want to widen the communication gap in our community.     I'm sure Bob believes that terminating these services will save the community money because he takes pride in being frugal with our money.   But at what cost do we continue to lose the few benefits afforded by the HOA?   I mentioned Larry McMillan's parking lot extension as a waste of money and Bob commented that it was only $2500 and made it sound like he gave that one to Larry.   (The parking lot project is actually going to cost $3000).  Bob doesn't think the community is divided and questioned whether I really believed that.  Of course it is; the board contributes to it.    Discouragement didn't stop there.  Bob told me that his board tried hard for a long time to get the community involved  in the governing process and didn't succeed. He apparently doesn't think I can do any better.  I had enough of Bob's pep talk....it's obvious he's not voting for me. 

My conversation with Bob must have been enlightening because when I exited the Plantation House he was in a huddle with Larry and his posse, most likely discussing the opposition.   

I question the fairness of the election given the conflict of interest concerns and I'm sure this statement will draw a few more gasps and replies "of how dare you."  But to anyone outside the groupthink, it's a real possibility.   Surely the board could've done a better job of canvassing residents to serve on the election committee.    If you wonder why I'm coming forward with raw honesty and disclosing this information?  It's because Bob's vision of Wedgefield is much different from mine and I don't think he's taking this community in the right direction.   I also don't think it's fair that candidates should be provoked and discouraged by sitting board members.    If our conversation was pro-community, positive and innovative,  I would've respected the privacy of our chat.    Just call this transparency or useful information for future candidates to keep in mind so they are better prepared for the unwelcoming reception. 

Finally, I will not vote for myself.   I don't believe I will get the respect I deserve as a fellow board member and will eventually be pushed out.   I will take on challenges of my choice, not those imposed by others who just want to drag me down.   I will continue to attend board meetings, hold the board accountable if necessary, and ask questions.  I'm sure at this point I will be met with immediate opposition because of my stances, but my motto has always been,"whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger."

Connie Downs.....