SORRY THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER HAS NOT PUBLISHED IN OVER A WEEK

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER WILL NOT PUBLISH AGAIN BEFORE DECEMBER 2ND, IF POSSIBLE.  ONE FAMILY MEMBER I SERVE AS GUARDIAN FOR IS IN THE HOSPITAL OUT OF STATE, AND MY CLOSE FAMILY MEMBER IN WEDGEFIELD HAS HAD ANOTHER DIAGNOSIS OF THE SAME PROBLEM THAT HOSPITALIZED THEM A FEW WEEKS AGO.  SEE YOU IN DECEMBER!

A BOARD CANDIDATE WRITES THE BLOG WITH CONGRATS TO THOSE WHO WON, OFFERS CONSIDERATIONS AND RESOLUTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

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

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.

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

Hello Madeline, Please post my email with my name.   I would appreciate it.  Former candidate Connie Downs. Congratulations to the winners of the 2017 November election Larry, Butch, and Steve.  I wish you all the best of luck this coming year.    I plan to continue to attend board meetings and ask questions when appropriate.     I'm still very interested in what's going on in our community.  I also want to thank the 116 residents who voted in support of me.    Knowing you appreciated my fresh ideas, raw honesty, and outspoken viewpoints meant a lot to me.....thanks so much.     Now for some more serious talk.  It's time for the board to contemplate changes to the election process.   I think it's important for the them to more effectively reach out to the entire community and seek out candidates with new and innovative ideas.   Putting up the same like minded people from the same social groups keeps  Wedgefield stagnant.   Diversity of thought creates a more healthy environment and moves us forward.   We've all heard the line, "change is good."   ....and it truly is.   Everyone knows how I feel about the selection of the election committee.    First of all, who can keep up with who's in and who's out right up to the day of the election.    Not only is it important to seek out residents who have no conflict of interest, but to find those with good communication skills who are capable of treating residents with respect and kindness. And most important, those who can function in their role without personal opinions interfering with their job.   You ARE representing the Wedgefield community.   Perhaps it was "me," but I was not treated with much respect when I registered to cast my vote.   I went to my designated line staffed by Linda Meltzer and Shirley Peterson and was greeted with an accusation from Ms. Meltzer that I "already voted."   What she believed she would gain by making this false accusation is beyond me.    Shirley allowed me to sign in so I could vote.   I asked to borrow a pen so I could fill out my ballot and I was shocked by the reaction of  the women behind the tables who took hold of their pens or pulled them away and refused to help me out.   Their excuse; "it was the only pen they had."  No sense accommodating voters when it's more fun trying to embarrass them.      I didn't allow this mistreatment to ruin my day.  I actually felt bad for causing these women to revert back to their middle school years.   I'd like to make it up to them by providing the committee with extra pens next year to share with the residents and I'd be okay if one or two walked off with them.  After completing my ballot I approached the election committee again to ask if I could submit my ballot early as I had another obligation in Conway.   The joke was on me as I trusted these women to be helpful.   I was told that Peggy Phillips was accepting early ballots and to go see her.   When I approached Peggy with my request, it was obvious by the expression on her face that the "girls" sent me on a wild goose chase, (tee hee hee).     So I understand that these women didn't vote for me.... or appreciate my viewpoints on issues.   Perhaps next year the board can seek out committee members who have professional experience and are capable of treating everyone equally and with respect.   Or perhaps people who would act in a manner that wouldn't lead some to question the outcome.   We are a community.   If you only tolerate like minded people, you should reconsider volunteering on  Wedgefield committees because people like me may drive you to act in a manner you may later regret; especially if you are given the opportunity to really get to know that person.      One final note.   While waiting to turn in my ballot, I was approached by Bob Garrison who was inquiring about my possible interest in working on the Wragg, the website, and some of the board committees; win or lose.   I initially showed interest in these prospects, but after much consideration, I will not accept any of these roles.  Refusing to help is not in my nature.    But I'm passing on any of these offers and I'm leaving it at that.   Connie Downs.....

THE RESERVE STUDY - NO I'M NOT READY TO LAY IT ALL OUT YET, BUT SOMETIMES WORDS FROM AN UNTRUSTWORTHY PERSON COLLIDE WITH THE TRUTH. HERE IS A DISASTROUS TRUTH, AS WE START OUR REPORTING ON THE RESERVE STUDY HISTORY

THE RESERVE STUDY FROM REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL, CONTRACT, TO FACTS PROVIDED TO THE CONTRACTOR BY THE BOARD, TO ACTUAL REPORT, HAS ALWAYS HAD HIDDEN FACT TO ALL AREAS OF DEVELOPMENT AND ACTUAL TRUTH BASED APPLICATION.  SORRY RESIDENTS, BUT THE HEAD IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS PICTURE IS ACTUALLY EACH AND EVERY MEMBER.

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

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've promised a detailed report on the Reserve Study, and started the research for an article that will be long and complicated, because of your board's twisted history, and often times - blatant untruths about what it does. 115 people have read the annual meeting article that was put up late afternoon yesterday.  If you've read that article you'll note that both I, and another resident had questions about the reserve study.  I'm going to copy in a couple of lines from yesterday's article including something that McMillin said that didn't make sense: "There is something smelly there when I had questions after, and quoted Jacky Walton about his answer at the time of the reserve study completion when he was asked if the canals were in the study, and Jacky answered that they were in the proposal, but not the final.  Larry jumped in and said there were TWO SETS of finals.  I requested and reviewed the final  way back then, and the company had stated clearly that the board didn't want the canals in the study."

This morning I started my research and up came this article from 1/29/13.  McMillin's "there were TWO SETS of finals", made sense.  I've told you the whole reserve study process was riddled with board members cut out of fact and development, etc.  Read the article and you'll begin to get the picture.  I'll highlight the words that collide with McMillin's.  HERE IS THE ARTICLE:

The Wedgefield Examiner reported on the reserve study contract, covered by Jacky Walton in his president's report.  We won't start at the beginning.  If you haven't read "Part I, The January 15th WPA Board Meeting, posted on The Wedgefield Examiner on Jan. 17, you might want to go back and read it.

There is new, not so great information.  I wrote the board and requested the opportunity to review the contract, proposals, and RFP (request for proposal).  I was provided the contract, and the responses to the RFP.  The RFP was not in the file.  I was told that William Douglas sent out the RFP and the board didn't have it.  This is just the beginning of a list of problems that have surfaced since the January 15 board meeting.

Why is it a problem?  When did your board verify for themselves that the RFP detailed all the necessary specifications and information, for our project?  Remember, we have NEVER, in all these years had a reserve study conducted.  Additionally, one board set aside $10,000 for a reserve study that was ignored by this board.  I believe they intend to spend $4,000. Our first reserve study will literally lay the foundation for our reserves.  It is always important for this process to be competitive, but this isn't the time to go cheap, if it impacts credible results. Is cost, not enough money,  why they didn't really want to know what the RFP, representing our needs, looked like?  You get what you pay for, and the time you are willing to invest to see that your project is done correctly, start to finish. It would be the same as you asking a contractor to bid to build something, and not knowing what specs he was using to bid.  Things only go from bad, to worse.

I reviewed what I was told was the contract.  I do believe they believed that to be truthful at the time.  First, the contract appeared to be "off the shelf".  That was disturbing because we haven't ever had a reserve study and your board is going to assign our reserves according to the findings.  Do they want the study results to be so benign that they can do what they want?  Remember about a year ago, we were told that if the board didn't assign reserves we would face problems, with either the audit, or our taxes.  I don't recall which, but I believe it was a set up to use one board member's figures.  I've reviewed the last audit administrative report and it wasn't mentioned.  We've been paying taxes for years, and it wasn't mentioned in the past.  What we didn't know at the time was, almost immediately, the board began to use this formula to distribute funds into reserves, monthly.  There was no real foundation to the appropriations, a lame excuse, but now we have reserves assigned accordingly.

I couldn't have a copy of the contract but I did read through it.  I did hand copy a portion of a clause that concerned me.

"(CONTRACTOR - I won't name) will assume, unless otherwise advised by client, that all reserve assets have been designated and constructed properly and each estimated useful life will approximate that of the norm per industry...."  In signing that contract your board lied on paper, and violated the contract.  The WPA doesn't have any of that.  No former reserve study, as a building block.  No experts EVER out here to assign the life of anything!  Our reserves were assigned, without realistic formula or backup.  They may have been based on a study by board members of past expense, but what is that worth?  It doesn't speak to life of asset, or have a solid foundation.  Take roads for instance.  In 2011, we spent almost $30,000 on an unlicensed, uninsured, contractor.  Many on this board justified it, and knowingly let it move forward.  How would you like to present that?

I read through and then ran into a board member in the office.  I asked if I was correct in stating that any assets that didn't have a proper reserve study background and foundation, would cost us beyond the contract, if the vendor had to create that information?  The board member said that was how he read it.  Basically, we don't have anything solid on any of our assets. I don't believe we have a single asset, that has the appropriate documentation. 

Since my visit, more information has come my way, from two different, credible sources.  When I can't, or won't provide documents, The Wedgefield Examiner calls the information - RUMOR.  That is what we'll call it for now.  It is credible information.  First, the contract President Walton signed, is not the contract the board approved.  Next, a board member stopped payment on the check written to the contractor.  They are going to have to start again.  Am I concerned?  YES!!!!  I'm afraid we are headed to another half baked job!

Please note:  None of this was presented at the board table.  Your board members were lying to the contracted reserve study group, and fighting amongst themselves for power positions.  Yes, you still have a lot of them at your board table today.  It should be noted that my credible source at the time came from a board or committee member at the time.  I'm leaving it that vague to protect the person who gave me the info - it wasn't McMillin for sure.  Who would trust "I was hiding in the office closet with president Walton", and it never happened.  Why don't you trust yourself, and ask to see the financial records for that time, and look for the cancelled check?



     

THE WPA 2017 ANNUAL MEETING RESULTS, AND COMMENTS

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

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.

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

I attended the WPA annual meeting yesterday, and will provide the following results as I noted them.  I reviewed the WPA website this morning, and as of 9:30am they have not been posted.  That is not a criticism, simply fact.  

The votes for the board seats:
Williams 218
McMillin -194
Vasey - 118
Downs - 116

The by-law amendment passed.

Comment:  I congratulate Connie Downs despite the loss.  The vote between Downs and Vasey was within 2 votes.  I thank her for her time, energy, and time taken to study the governing documents, regular attendance at  board meetings, and her guts to ask questions.  I wish Williams and Vasey well, and hope that they will take the time to study the governing documents, before they ever sit at the board table.  Both Vasey and Williams stated themselves that they weren't familiar with the governing documents, pre annual meeting.  Williams has shown the entire association that he has the ability to look at a problem, find a resolution, commit, organize, and implement.  Vasey only wanted to serve on ARC, and currently sits on the canal committee.  Serving in those roles, for about six months prior to the election, he should have known about the governing documents, and what they contained.  I ask that they each serve as individuals, and vote from the board table as individual board members, whose very placement on the board require them to know, understand, and govern us according to the governing documents.  Personally, I firmly believe your board will see a large "reckoning" legal type moment this year.  You only needed to look at your board's ongoing poor performance at the annual meeting this year.  

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE MEETING ITSELF:
Board members in attendance:  Jacky Walton, Garrison, Anderson, Johnson, Phillips, Ebert, Garrison.  Board members absent:  John Walton, Cline.

In regard to a quorum, it was explained that after delinquencies were considered that 530 properties were able to cast votes.  177 were necessary to meet the requirements of quorum.  205 mail in ballots had been mailed in. 

Proof of mailing notice was presented.

A motion was made for the election process to proceed. Garrison called for nominations from the floor three times, as required, and there weren't any.

The election committee member names were announced and the ballots to be casted by members were collected, and the committee retired to count.

The 2016 annual meeting minutes were read, and it appeared that Garrison stopped to pencil a typo correction (this becomes notable later),  and proceeded to the end.  The minutes of the 2016 annual meeting were voted on and approved as read.

President's report:  Jacky Walton thanked all the volunteers on committees, and asked that new people step forward.

Vice president's report:  Garrison thanked Cline and Ebert for their service on the board.  He said he would like to see the Easter Egg Hunt expand beyond Easter, and possibly hold a barbecue.  He stated we didn't have a lot of children in the association, saw them, and a few residents who brought their grandchildren to this event .  We could keep the bouncy house, and if the residents think it is a good idea, maybe have hot dogs, and residents bring dishes to pass.

Secretary's report: - None

Treasurer's report:  Phillips reported the board approved the 2018 budget, with the 2018 assessments set at $525.  The budget goes to each board member as it is developed for their recommendations, prior to the final.  She named the finance committee members.

ARC report:  Johnson reported that it had been a slow month.  Over the last year we have seen 3 new construction, and 48 change or tree permits.  ARC has issued less fines.  Adjustments have been made to storage sheds, and tree removal.  ARC would welcome suggestions as to how to improve.

Legal report:  Garrison stated that most of the year was set in delinquent accounts.  If the board has to go to foreclosure to collect the legal costs are around $2,000, and different than we might think, that often is not recovered in the final determinations.  Get your assessments in early.  There was a legal lawsuit against and individual board member that was summarily dismissed, and is not active at this moment.

Finance report:  Phillips stated that the monthly financial reports were prepared by a CPA for $150/month.  As to why the financials weren't on the website, she said a lot of data was lost when the computer system was hijacked for ransom, and the new site is not pass word protected, as designed by your board.  She assured us that none of our bank accounts hold more than $250,000 as necessary protection of funds.

Communication report:  No report provided.

Welcome committee report:  Ebert reported that during 2017 15 new members were welcomed either by mail, or in person visits, depending on the new resident's preference.

Drainage committee:  Jacky Walton reported that there were 5 drainage issues in 2017.  Three of those were the responsibility of the property owner, and the committee was still working on two.

Water amenities committee report:  No report provided.

Roads report:  Anderson reported that during 2017 most of the road concerns were handled with cold patch.  There are a few streets which will require more than that in the near future.  The issue of aging street signs brought excessive bid numbers, and it was decided that we'll use what we have for now.  The speed bump survey included in our annual meeting packets showed 95 for, and 89 against.  Discussions will follow at a later date.

Grounds report:  McMillin stated that we were storm damage free for the last year.  The storm clean up reserve had been depleted after the last hurricane, and $20,000 was allocated by the board for the reserve.  Howard's, the grounds contractor has notified the board that he will accept the terms of the current contract when it comes up in February.  Nina Williams will hold a Crime Watch meeting.  He goes on to say that the Georgetown County Sheriffs recommend "see something, say something, but don't put yourself at risk."  Plans to decorate grounds for the holidays are set for November 25 and 26.  He made a motion to give residents free votive candles for the luminary event.  Two cases of candles only cost $240.  Motion passed.

Compliance report:  Garrison stated the committee is in the process of putting together a packet for closings.  The board already has to be involved because they have to provide a signed waiver of first refusal, and a document stating the property is clear of back assessments.  The packet would contain a document for the new owner to sign that would state that they are becoming a member of the WPA, and some guidance, so we don't hear, "I didn't know I had to do that."

Old business - None

New business - None

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER'S GENERAL COMMENTS REGARDING THE REPORTING PORTION OF THE MEETING:  We had no reports from several key areas of our board's work for the year, and some of the reports were laughable as representative on your board's expenditure of funds - often against our governing documents, general communication of withdrawal of resident information without discussion or vote from the board table, contracting methods (please go review the documents in the office regarding some of these procurement oriented projects), and to replace real annual meeting discussion we get free hot dogs (costs minimal, and votive lights ($240).  

No water amenities report!  Committee chair, John Walton wasn't present, but we had McMillin, Anderson, Johnson, Jacky Walton, and Garrison there, and in the past reports have been submitted for reading when the chair is absent.  All of these board members have been involved in some pretty shaky moves in providing illegally (against governing documents) up to $135,000 of our assessment dollars for dredging!  How many canal lot owners have committed themselves to this illegal mess?  Where was a report that this board illegally spent $7,950 out of emergency reserves, that were depleted for all of us, on illegal tree cutting on private lots on the canals.  No note what so ever, even if you believed their ridiculous writings when questioned.  

Where in the grounds report do we hear about any of the money spent - their words - on the "neglected, damaged, spoil site - that McMillin claimed "the whole board knew why", and he "listened to someone who was no longer there", and wouldn't tell us, but has spent money out of our assessment dollars.  What about a report on the spoil site?

No communications report about a website where minutes, financials, recordings have been removed, half of the time, and no announcements posted regarding open meetings, and first readings to policy manual changes.

Where was a report under finance as to how much we actually pay for financial record keeping.  How much time does the office secretary spend on entries?  What is the cost and time allocation to her?  Just how much do we pay that bookkeeper, in addition to the $150 /month CPA, that they then pay to audit the books.

As to financial reporting of expense for all of 2017 from this board, we get possibly the cost of free hot dogs at Easter, and $240 of votive lights.

The meeting was a sham.  

WE MOVE TO RESIDENT QUESTIONS.  PLEASE NOTE:  I WILL HAVE COMMENTS IN RED AFTER SOME OF THE RESIDENT COMMENTS, AND WILL NOTE THEM AS COMMENTS.  I WAS PROUD OF THE RESIDENTS WHO PRESENTED THEM:

Resident # 1:  Who is responsible for the website - Cline, someone else - what committee. Our president says the website is discussed under communication, and they'd like to get it up and running.

Resident # 2:  The lights for the luminaries are not enough, not enough containers.

Resident # 3:  Crime Watch Meeting on December 5th at 6:30PM at the WPA office.

Resident # 4:  Thanks the people for contributing to the mowing initiative on the golf course, until purchased.

Resident # 5:  Problem with children driving golf carts.

Resident # 6:  Would like the reserve study published.  We don't know too much about it, but feel that it is important that we all get to review it.  Someone on the board says it is long, and there is a copy at the office.  McMillin says the reserve study is flexible, and forecasts how much things could cost in the future.  The resident says "lets you move money around".  Another resident jumps in, and asks if it will be updated.  Our president says the company will update every three to five years, at a reduced rate.  Resident asks who contacts who?  The president says they will contact the board.  COMMENTS:  A big thank you to the two residents who jumped in and brought this question forward.  The answers from your board are vague, and I believe that way on purpose.  Dear president, it has to have been three years, and real close to five already.  This is a big document - not only by size, but when the reserve study was being prepared, your board refused to allow a sitting board member to speak to the contractor during contractor to board conference calls.  Additionally, almost without exception, every time your board transfers money through motion from operating to reserves for allocation to the various reserve accounts, someone on that board says, "are we appropriating according to the reserve percentages", and the answer from whoever is the treasurer at the time - that would be either Phillips, or former board member DeMarchi, and the answer is "yes".  I'd suggest that you go to the minutes, but they are so sanitized, that they don't include that discussion.  So go to the tapes of the board meetings and listen for yourself, but the board has removed the tapes from the website, and often the minutes.  More to follow, after other residents' comments and questions.

Resident (Former WPA president) # 7:   There is a by-law change on the ballot this year to make a change to omit the CPA.  This association has 1/2 MILLION dollars in reserves, and he names a figure that I couldn't catch, but says this much money from assessments each year.  You have a CPA at $150/mo?  You get what you pay for.  You can't have a bargain (my word) CPA because they are less doing this. You have the same CPA auditing himself.  Where is that good business? Someone on the board says that they hired a bookkeeper that does a lot of this stuff, and the CPA doesn't have to.  Garrison says that the by-law as written doesn't exclude a CPA.  The resident says, "you wouldn't have put that in there if you didn't want to change it."  Comment:  THANK YOU RESIDENT!  YOU GOT IT!   Someone on the board says that the board didn't make the resident decide to submit this.  The former president asks who submitted the by-law change.  The board says they have never revealed who submitted by-law amendments.  Comments:  First, I so proud of this resident/former president who questioned this board at the annual meeting.  Thank you, for staying with it!  First, I've told you all that board members are residents.  They have to be a resident, and in good standing to have anything to do with the annual meeting.  A board member who submits a by-law change can legally, snaky fashion, say a resident submitted.  McMillin, as in board member, recently addressed this by-law change in open discussion, saying that "what the BOARD wanted to do with this by-law change" was save us money, a $150/mo".  You decide whether the RESIDENT who submitted it was a board member.  Also remember that Garrison threw out at board meetings, on the dredging issue, that a resident had submitted a by-law change in 2015 that stated that absolutely no money would be spent on the canals, from our assessment dollars - ever.  He reported that the lawyer for the board said that it couldn't be placed on the ballot because of some technical writing problems, but now the resident knew what it took, and it was coming our way.  He used this scare tactic to all canal lot owners until the private canal lot owners meeting, with Garrison, amongst many other board members present.  He was asked about that by-law amendment coming up again in 2016, and he reported that HE had talked to that member, and they had agreed to hold off "for now".  The point, like that canal amendment, either it was a member of the board, or someone Garrison controlled.  

Resident # 8, and more numbers, because it is me, Madeline Claveloux, and I stood up a couple of times.  This gets complicated.  I will only report what I asked, and what I was told.  There was some interaction with a board member after, that I will not discuss until I see if it unfolds.  That was my commitment.  I wasn't asked by the board member to keep it to myself, but I chose to in attempting to move forward.  

I'm reporting to the best of my ability.  I can't take notes when I am talking.  I have great recall.  I have readers who were present at the meeting and I ask that if you find error in what I say today, that you write the blog, and note your concern.  I will remove your name, and publish it.

I asked how my board could have passed numerous changes to the policy manual, without posting first reading on the WPA website as required by a by-law that was submitted by a resident for a vote at an annual meeting, voted on, and passed a few years ago?  I asked where our legal and compliance committee were that they had allowed this to happen for at least a year and a half, with numerous changes to the policy manual, voted on by every member of that board repeatedly.  The board's answer was that they'd take a look at that!  I came back and stated that every board member at that board table was responsible for knowing the by-laws - governing documents, and it went beyond compliance, and legal, when they all voted to approve without following the by-law.  They sat looking at their hands each and everyone of them.  I further asked if they'd have to recind any of those changes, until they did the right thing?  They'll have to look into it.  Comments:  Residents, call me outspoken, trouble maker, whatever you want, but this is blatant disregard for our governing documents, and our operations in the best interests of Wedgefield.  Hot dogs and votive lights will not buy me.  The fact is, your individual board members and president all ignored this intentionally, and don't care.  If you review the changes to the policy manual they made, they gave themselves higher spending limits, etc.  At times, they ignore what even they put in the policy manual in regard to requests for proposals, bidding, contract development etc.  It is costing us all, and they are thumbing their noses at us, and handling our governance and our very homes, and lives like we are a herd of dumb animals.  The fact is, it hasn't been just a year and a half of this stuff, it has been about 3 years, and I called them on it once before, and they did nothing.  I talked to the actual resident who had submitted this by-law change regarding posting between first and second reading and a vote to change the policy manual.  That resident said that after the by-law had passed requiring this, that he/she was serving on the compliance committee to review and change as needed the policy manual.  When the board wasn't following the by-law requirements then, he/she met with our current president, and he said it would be remedied, and they were false promises because it never happened, and he/she was no longer a member of the committee.

As noted above, during the reading of the 2016 annual meeting minutes, I observed Garrison as the reader, correcting a typo on his copy.  The minutes were approved.  I asked the board if the minutes would be posted immediately?  I went on to say that the reason for my question was that at the regular October 2017 board meeting, as the board went to approve the September minutes (the board reviews hard copy - they are not read aloud), a board member noted a typo, and went on to approve the September minutes.  Yet the September minutes were not posted on the WPA website following the meeting.  I had checked the site a number of times.  One of the board members called out to the paid staff person Lee, who stood up and said they were posted immediately following the meeting.  I didn't argue.  I didn't have my documentation in front of me.  I have to tell you that I was lied to during the annual meeting.  After the October meeting, and my own observations of lack of posting of the September minutes, I received a call from a resident asking me why the September minutes weren't posted.  I said that I couldn't find them on the site either, and if they were concerned they needed to contact the board.  That other resident sent the following email to me, verifying what he/she was told verbally, and through email from Lee at the office.  I've removed the name of the resident to protect harassment by this board. NOTE THE DATE OF THE EMAILS.  IT WAS TWO WEEKS AFTER THE OCT. BOARD MEETING.

Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 1:51 PM From: Name removed To: mclaveloux@sc.rr.com <mclaveloux@sc.rr.com> Subject: Fw: September meeting minutes fyi...see below.   I guess the typo that was pointed out during the board meeting constitutes a delay in posting the minutes.   These won't get posted til December now.    From: Lee Cote <wedgeassoc.com@frontier.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 1:49 PM To: Name Removed Subject: Re: September meeting minutes After a Motion has been made and seconded, the minutes will be posted. Lee Cote Secretary to the Board Wedgefield Plantation Association, Inc. 1956 Wedgefield Road Georgetown, SC 29440 843.546.2718 843.546.4027 fax On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 1:48 PM, Resident Name Remove Hello Lee, When will the September meeting minutes get posted to the website?    Thanks,

Back to my own last question to the board.  I asked the board how they could appropriate money to the reserves according to the reserve study, when according to president Walton's answer to a resident question (not mine) at the time that the canals were included in the proposal, but not the final reserve study.  President Walton didn't recall that, and they'd have to look into it.  This is a long subject which will require a lot of documented research.  I have the information, and I went to the office after the reserve study was approved, and reviewed it, took notes, and reported on it, on the blog with documentation, at the time.  So for now, I'll present to you the rest of the story as it relates to this question, by posting what I emailed a resident last night.  Here it is:
There is something smelly there when I had questions after, and quoted Jacky Walton about his answer at the time of the reserve study completion when he was asked if the canals were in the study, and Jacky answered that they were in the proposal, but not the final.  Larry jumped in and said there were TWO SETS of finals.  I requested and reviewed the final  way back then, and the company had stated clearly that the board didn't want the canals in the study.  

STAY TUNED FOR THE RESERVE STUDY REPORT!    

TWO NEW ARTICLES WERE POSTED TODAY, NOVEMBER 16. WE'VE ADDED A SPECIAL THANKSGIVING NOTICE WITH THIS ANNOUNCEMENT.

THE WPA BOARD PRESIDENT WILL NOT BE PARDONING A TURKEY FOR THANKSGIVING THIS YEAR!
IT ISN'T THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE A HEART FOR THESE BIRDS,
BUT HE PARDONS HIMSELF, AND THE ACTIONS OF HIS BOARD MEMBERS EVERY MONTH THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, AND HE JUST HASN'T GOT ANY PUBLIC PARDONS LEFT.
SORRY TURKEYS!

SOME INFORMATION FOR THE RESIDENTS WHO HAVE ASKED ABOUT SUING THE BOARD, OR IF THERE WERE AGENCIES THAT THE BOARD'S ACTIONS COULD BE REPORTED TO.

IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE RESIDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING SUING, REPORTING, OR HAVING THE BOARD INVESTIGATED, THIS INFORMATION MIGHT HELP.

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

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, as I stated at the end of the article on the spoil site, I some residents have contacted me about suing the board.  Still others, have asked who in the state that they could report the board to, and have them investigate certain actions of the board. One of the last contacts asked me to participate in a secret community committee to investigate actions of the board, and help put information together to proceed down one of these avenues.  As I follow the stats on the blog I see readers researching all the way back to 2011 - the beginning of the blog to gather information for their own purposes.  For a few, who have contacted me for even more information prior to 2011, I have suggested they follow the articles presented with documentation on The Wedgefield Times, which goes back prior to 2011.

Yesterday, as I was doing some research on Internet, I came across the document I will provide below.  It is a letter from SC Attorney General's Office responding to someone as to whether that office will get involved with HOA illegalities.  As you read through you'll note that they really would prefer not to use their resources that way, but there is a chance that they will.  I'd suggest that the small groups that have contacted me, consider this approach. Remember that our state has tried a few times to help residents whose homes are under the governance of a HOA board, and failed. It has appeared to me, and obviously others, or I wouldn't be getting these calls to meetings, that more and more people understand the desperation in Wedgefield.  Get your documentation in order on the facts related to your concerns, what you see as violations (document), and proceed.  If I were doing it, I would also note copies to the governor, our local congressional representatives, and our senators, and get signatures from as many residents as possible for the cover page of your document.  Hope this helps, and gives you thought as to another way that you might proceed.

HERE IS THE DOCUMENT: