************************************************
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.
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!
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.
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!
