*************************************************
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.
**************************************************************************
Readers, I am reposting this May 27, 2015 article because some of your fellow readers have gone back to read it, after reading a recent article on the blog:
"Saturday, October 28, 2017
THIS IS ANOTHER WEDGEFIELD PUZZLE. I HOPE YOU SOLVE THE PUZZLE AND DO THE RIGHT THING FOR WEDGEFIELD. THE FIRST CLUE IS A PAIR OF GLASSES."
Almost three and a half years ago I was providing you with what appears now to be the board's full blown strategy of removing information from you that would help you make good decisions as to whether the board was making decisions in the best interests of Wedgefield, rather than in their individual self serving interests, which are tied to an agenda - "you know who runs the board", and the situation is getting worse year after year. Look at the article republished below. The board was at least haphazardly following the by-law they are ignoring completely now - a by-law that residents voted in - blatantly - right in your face - IGNORING, because "what are you going to do about it?" Here, once again is the by-law: "to adopt and add to Section 2 of Article IX of the by-laws the following sentence thereto: A motion to change the policy manual must be presented at an open meeting, posted on the Wedgefield Plantation Association website for resident comments, and NOT voted on until the following Board Meeting. They haven't posted policy manual changes in about two years! What do they post to sooth you into believing that they are doing a good job? They post McMillin's pumpkin pictures instead of following the law. This is on top of a recent removal of board meeting minutes, and financials on the WPA official website. Then they restored the minutes under a special secret on the website link that they only gave to residents who called and pushed them about it. Then they put the minutes back up, and recently restored what they now must call the financials, which is the approved budget, NO MONTHLY REPORT. If you attend the board meetings the board sometimes hands out what they now call the monthly financials, but they've changed that report to. We no longer get the line item budget amounts, year to date income and expenditures, and whether we are over or under the projection. It appears they don't want you to know and understand what the board is doing with our money.
It is all about our money - the use of our assessments, and they are so out of control, on someones hidden agenda, that they have to keep you in the dark. Read the article posted below. Look at what they are changing. It is all about their individual power to spend money, when they want, and under their own "expertise"! Who is at fault? EVERY INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBER! YOU DON'T ELECT A FLOCK! Each board member is to understand the governing documents, review proper statements of work, requests for proposals, the budget, value to the best interests of the association, and after proper motion, and discussion, which we don't have, VOTE INDEPENDENTLY IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF WEDGEFIELD. It is time to vote. We have a chance through the voting process to remove three of these long term board members, and replace them with decent people. Cline and Ebert aren't running again. McMillin is. Go back and look at just the latest reports on his parking lot fiasco, illegal dredging, spoil site, tree cutting on private canal lots, etc. Don't vote for him. What is alarming is that one new candidate - Vasey says, when asked about the governing documents, is that he doesn't know about that he wants to continue to serve on ARC. Oh the corrupt ARC that retaliates against residents who make complaints, and closes a blind eye to their friends violations! Waste one vote this year, and only vote for two candidates - Downs, and Williams - give these two a chance. Vote "NO" on that amendment.
Please read the reprinted,
factual article that some of your friends and neighbors went all the way back
to 2015 to find. This board has left us, like this:
HERE IS THE REPOSTED ARTICLE:
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
PLEASE NOTE: I have taken the majority of changes to the Policy Manual, presented as first reading during the May WPA Board Meeting, and posted, as required on the WPA website, and provided TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, the CURRENT POLICY MANUAL language, with the FIRST READING language directly below it. Your board failed to provide, for residents’ convenience, this opportunity. COMMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED AT THE END, AND NOTED AS SUCH.
NUMBER 1:
CURRENT:
5.01 Purchase of Office Supplies:
1. 5.01.01 It shall be the policy of the WPA to allow the Secretary or Treasurer to purchase office supplies not to exceed $200 without prior approval of the Board. Refer to Procurement Policy Section 11.01.01.
FIRST READING:
5.01 Purchase of Office Supplies:
1. 5.01.01 It shall be the policy of the WPA to allow the Secretary or Treasurer to purchase office supplies not to exceed $500 without prior approval of the Board. Refer to Procurement Policy Section 11.01.01.
NUMBER 2:
CURRENT:
6. OTHER PURCHASES BY BOARD AND COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON
1. 6.01 The President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, ARC Chairperson, Legal Chairperson, Drainage Chairperson, Roads Chairperson, or Grounds Chairperson shall have the right to make purchases up to $200 without prior approval of the Board. However, these purchases must be authorized, prior to purchase, by the signature of one other Executive Board member, and be reported and ratified at the next regular monthly Board Meeting. Refer to Procurement Policy Section 11.01.03.
FIRST READING:
6. OTHER PURCHASES BY BOARD AND COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON
6.01 The President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, ARC Chairperson, Legal Chairperson, Drainage Chairperson, Roads Chairperson, or Grounds Chairperson shall have the right to make purchases up to $500 without prior approval of the Board provided adequate funds are available in the appropriate budget and the availability of the funds are confirmed with the Treasurer. Reporting of the transaction shall be made by the purchaser at the next scheduled Board. Refer to Procurement Policy Section 11.01.03. NOTE: WHY DOESN’T THE WATER AMENITIES CHAIR HAVE THIS PRIVILEDGE?
NUMBER 3:
CURRENT:
2. 6.02 All purchases in excess of $200 must first be approved at a regular monthly Board Meeting unless there is an emergency and a telephone survey of a majority of the
Board grants permission and it is duly noted as to which members were called and who gave their verbal consent. The purchase must then be reported on and ratified at the next regular monthly Board Meeting. Refer to Procurement Policy Section 11.02.01.
Board grants permission and it is duly noted as to which members were called and who gave their verbal consent. The purchase must then be reported on and ratified at the next regular monthly Board Meeting. Refer to Procurement Policy Section 11.02.01.
FIRST READING:
2. 6.02 All purchases in excess of $500 must first be approved at a regular monthly Board Meeting or at a Special Meeting called that purpose. . Refer to Procurement Policy Section 11.02.01.
NUMBER 4:
CURRENT:
7. BIDS FOR MINOR AND MAJOR EXPENDITURES
1. 7.01 It shall be the policy of the WPA to secure three bids on expenditures exceeding $1,000 when available and prudent. The Board may waive this requirement when necessary. Refer to Procurement Policy Section 11.03.
2. 7.02 Major expenditures in excess of $3,000 can only be made after Board Approval. Refer to Procurement Policy Section 11.04.
FIRST READING:
7. BIDS FOR MINOR AND MAJOR EXPENDITURES
1. 7.01 It shall be the policy of the WPA to secure three bids on expenditures exceeding $2,500 when available and prudent. The Board may waive this requirement when necessary. Refer to Procurement Policy Section 11.03.
2. 7.02 Major expenditures in excess of $5,000 can only be made after Board Approval. Refer to Procurement Policy Section 11.04.
NUMBER 5: PLEASE NOTE: If you print out the changes provided on the WPA website, it could appear that there are more than I have presented here. # 1thru 4, presented above, also appear almost in duplicate under Procurement. That does make sense for continuity in the Policy Manual, but I don’t find it necessary here, in an article that is already running long. #5 begins in a new area, not detailed above.
11.03.01 CURRENTExpenditures in excess of $1,000 but less than $3,000 can only be made after Board approval. These expenditures require a scope of work to be prepared prior to being submitted to the Board. The scope of work will specify: a) why the work is to be done; b) exactly what is to be accomplished by the expenditure; and c) the measurable results from the work. It is desirable to secure three or more bids for this work; however, if not possible, the Board may accept a single bid for the work. The Board must make every effort to insure that the bid is fair and reasonable.
FIRST READING:
Expenditures in excess of $2,500 but less than $5,000 can only be made after Board approval. These expenditures require a scope of work to be prepared prior to being submitted to the Board. The scope of work will specify: a) why the work is to be done; b) exactly what is to be accomplished by the expenditure; and c) the measurable results from the work. It is desirable to secure three or more bids for this work; however, if not practical, the Board may accept a single bid for the work. NOTE: The following line is deleted from current, in the first reading. The Board must make every effort to insure that the bid is fair and reasonable.
NUMBER 6:
11.04.01 & 11.04.02 CURRENT:
Expenditures in excess of $3,000 are considered major expenditures and can only be made after Board approval. These expenditures require a scope of work to be prepared prior to being submitted to the Board. The scope of work will specify: a) why the work is to be done; b) exactly what is to be accomplished by the expenditure; and c) the measurable results from the work.
If the project is of such a large magnitude that it will require partial payment as specific aspects of the work is accomplished, then deliverables to be accomplished at the end of these milestones must be provided in the scope of work. In the event that a project exceeds $10,000, it is the Board’s responsibility to hire a licensed professional engineer to review the scope of work, the bids, and the completed project.
It is desirable to secure three bids for this work. If this is not possible, the Board may accept a single bid, however, the Board must make every effort to insure that the bid is fair and reasonable. In some instances is there is insufficient expertise on the Board, project review by an engineer will add credibility to the bid.
11.04.01 & 11.04.02 FIRST READING:
Expenditures in excess of $5,000 are considered major expenditures and can only be made after Board approval. These expenditures require a scope of work to be prepared prior to being submitted to the Board. The scope of work will specify: a) why the work is to be done; b) exactly what is to be accomplished by the expenditure; and c) the measurable results from the work.
If the project is of such a large magnitude that it will require partial payment as specific aspects of the work is accomplished, then deliverables to be accomplished at the end of these milestones must be provided in the scope of work. Note: The following underlined lines have been removed completely in the first reading , including the $10,000 specification. In the event that a project exceeds $10,000, it is the Board’s responsibility to hire a licensed professional engineer to review the scope of work, the bids, and the completed project. NOTE: this section now ends with the following statement: A licensed professional engineer may be hired at the board’s discretion.
It is desirable to secure three bids for this work. If this is not practical, the Board may accept a single bid. In some instances if there is insufficient expertise on the Board, project review by an engineer or other qualified professional may be desirable.
COMENTS:
Did the board meet the requirements regarding the posting of the changes? Yes. However, the changes are numerous, and if approved, greatly, and gravely increase this board’s powers as it relates to dollar amounts, contracting, and the hiring of engineers. The requirement for posting the changes, is to give residents the opportunity to review, and comment, prior to a second reading, and possible approval, by the board. While it isn’t an opportunity for you to vote, it is the opportunity to write the board, and possibly influence the board’s vote, if you have concerns. When we vote for by-law changes at the annual meeting, the current language is presented, along with the proposed changes directly below it. I don’t need violins to play, but being forced to find these items in the current Policy Manual, and compare them to the proposed changes, is cumbersome, and takes a lot of time. It could appear that this board doesn’t want our opinion. Why? We have 6-12 members who attend the meetings on a good day. I believe this shoddy presentation of information is just one more indication, of their disrespect for residents, and their counting on your lethargy.
These proposed changes dramatically increase individual board member/committee chairs dollar approval, without proper discussion at the board table. This board piece meals projects now, allowing them to complete projects piece by piece without true discussion, at the board table. Look at the gatehouse. It is 2 ½ years later and it is still a mess, without reported outcomes.
These proposals remove engineering oversight, if they feel they have the expertise. We’ve had good money wasted on failed projects, when they said they had the expertise. Almost always, they claim they have the expertise. Look at the failed road project of 3-4 years ago. When they did get a engineer involved in every aspect, last year, we redid the roads a board claimed had the expertise on the failed project.
Review the wording regarding scope of work, and benchmarked contracts. If you bothered to review these items, on almost all contracts (no one else would call them that), you’d see that there hasn’t been any real bidding process, credible contracts, or sealed bids, on most projects. They haven’t been following the current policies in these areas, why would you give them higher financial approval power, without discussion at the board table, such as it is now? Write and ask the board to allow you to review the request for proposal, bid responses, and contract for the gate house when they awarded our President the contract. When I reviewed these items, the so called contract I was provided was the bid specs, and there wasn’t even a place for the board, or the contractor, to sign, and it contained all three stages, and they were only awarding the first stage. THERE WAS NO TOTAL CONTRACT DOLLAR AMOUNT ON THIS RIDICULOUS DOCUMENT.
Stop, and review, and consider writing the board before they give too much of the farm away.
