MERRY CHRISTMAS! THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER WILL RESUME PUBLICATION AFTER THE 26TH

FOR ME, CHRISTMAS ALWAYS BRINGS MEMORIES OF A WHITE CHRISTMAS.  MERRY CHRISTMAS READERS!  MAY YOUR CHRISTMAS WISHES ALWAYS INCLUDE BEAUTIFUL MEMORIES, AND THOUGHTFUL WISHES!

LET'S HOPE THAT NO ONE EVER TRIES TO RUIN YOUR HOLIDAY SEASON WITH NASTY WISHES, COVERED BY AN HOA, LIKE THIS ONE FROM BOARD MEMBER MCMILLIN

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ADDED ON 12/23/17 -WEDGEFIELD HAS REASON TO CELEBRATE SOME OF THE PROMISE OF THE DECEMBER WPA MEETING. A PROMISE OF MOVING FORWARD IS ONLY AS GOOD, AS THE ACTIONS TAKEN TO FULFILL THE PROMISE. IT ISN'T TIME TO CLINK THE WINE GLASSES JUST YET.

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

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.

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

The Wedgefield Examiner wants to stay on the positive notes of the December WPA meeting.  See article "Highlights Of The WPA December 19th Board Meeting", posted on December 20th.  The highlights presented give us reason to feel positive, if the board moves forward with actions according to our governing documents, and cleans up some of the problems that exist in certain potential projects.  I advised hopeful caution to the reader as I wrote the article.

Review a few of the positives noted in the report.  Motions to move forward in some areas appeared to come from resident concerns, and it is good to be heard.

*Our treasurer made a motion to allow the finance committee to look into another CPA.  Will the committee put forth a proposal of requirements, and bring it to the board for review, and seek requests for proposal, and then select a CPA?  We can't know in advance.  The committee is composed of board members, with one lonely non board resident.  If the board moves forward on this at first glance positive move, in an open, good business approach, the whole board will review the process, at an open meeting, so we all know that the process was handled in a positive "in the best interests of Wedgefield" manner.  Why the hesitation on my part?  I've had a few contacts from fellow residents who laughingly said that they were pretty sure they knew who the accountant would be.  After considering what they said, I think that they could be right.  I'm keeping the name to myself, and hoping for a process in finding a accountant comes out of it, not the popularity of the members of our social clubs.

*Our vice president/legal chair/member of many board committees, made a motion to investigate the cost of updating our current reserve study.  This in itself is great.  In fact, a resident member - not me, asked about it at the annual meeting.  Wonderful!  Will each board member get a copy of the current reserve study, and ask questions about it's development?  Because there are a lot of credible questions, that speak to compliance, and how it was developed, and approved.  We heard an item of concern at the annual meeting, when questions arose, and a sitting board member said that there were two finals!  Board meeting recordings during that time indicate that the president of the board signed one, and a check was written, and then cancelled.  Details of the development of the existing reserve study, indicate that there was some secrecy in the development, and a sitting board member was denied the ability to sit in on a conference call with the developer of the study, by some still sitting on the board.  At that time, a resident asked if the canals were included in the reserve study, and your board president said it was in the proposal, but not the final.  I don't know which "final" I was allowed to review at the time.  I now have a copy of the reserve study.  I don't know which final it is, but am told that it is being used by the board.

For well over a year, I have written about the illegalities of the current canal dredging.  I'm not taking the time now to go over all that is wrong, but since we are talking about the reserve study, one of the compliance concerns regarding dredging and reserves, resides in the current document.  The reserve study as it exists now, contains the following statement, "The board has informed us that the dredging of canals is the responsibility of the individual homeowner with water front.  This direction is based on the history of the community (comment: not so), multiple government agency involvement (comment:  not so), and lawyer's opinions (comment:  as many saying responsible, as this board's special lawyer hires).  The board has indicated that they would like to contribute $30,000 each year to the dredging, regardless of association obligation.  We can change the wording, timing and unit cost of this entry if the board so desires."

The legal, and compliance question then is "how did some on this board allow this statement of supposed fact, be allowed to enter this document as a foregone truth to the document study, and assignment of reserve funds?"  Where is a recording - literally a voice recording - or a date of meeting and accompanying quote in minutes, of a motion, discussion, and a vote, at an open board meeting, prior to the onset of the reserve study project, that allowed this board to bring this statement into fact?  I attend almost all meetings, review and often transcribe from the tapes of meetings, and review minutes (since taken down for the period of time all this was happening), and haven't been able to find it.  Perhaps, if legal, or compliance can find it, prior to the reserve study (June 10, 2013), they would share it.  Otherwise, the current document is faulty - extremely so, and out of compliance with our governing documents, and shouldn't be built on, but started again.  Where in our governing documents does it allow your board to make a single $30,000 commitment of our assessment dollars, that now turns into up to $135,000 (collected since), and held for a dredging, proposed with even more illegalities?

Note: added on 12/23/17:   The reserve study contractor added the following statement to the study in their overview:  "DREDGING: On 4/6/13 RDA met with Wedgefield Plantation board members. RDA was informed that the canal dredging was not the responsibility of the Association, even though it covered the cost of the first dredging. The board explained that the canals are owned by the Federal Government and future dredging may need to be performed by the individual homeowners with property fronting the canal. However, the board presently wishes to provide $30,000 each year toward any future dredging. RDA has reviewed the Declarations and dredging is not discussed. We have attached this document. It is our understanding that first dredging involved multiple government

agencies and legal proceedings. RDA has not reviewed any of the government or legal documents from the previous dredging and has relied on the board’s direction concerning the responsibility of the canal dredging." 

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER CELEBRATES 90,000 VISITS TO THE BLOG

TWO NEW ARTICLES WERE ADDED ON DECEMBER 20TH AND 21ST

A CONCLUSION TO A LEGAL ARTICLE ON HOA GOVERNANCE - LOOKS LIKE THE BOARD'S COMPLIANCE TO THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS IS CRITICAL

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

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.

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

VIII.    Conclusion

Homeowner rights in a common interest community against their community association arise out of the community’s legal documents and the conduct of the association in carrying out the duties and functions assigned to it in those documents, by state statutes and common law.  While the most clearly defined rights that a homeowner possesses lie in the areas of breach of covenant, simple negligence, and liability for trespass, more complex legal questions are posed by the extent of association liability for the protection of owners from foreseeable crimes and breach of statutory duties.  While the outcomes vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, there continues to be an expansion of owner rights and community association liability.  As community associations are increasingly being recognized as quasi-governmental entities with powers greater than a mere landlord, the exact nature of the legal relationship between the homeowner and their community association is in the process of being more clearly defined.  In any event, educated homeowners with expanding legal rights will help ensure the smooth operation of the community by the community association.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE WPA DECEMBER 19TH BOARD MEETING

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

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.

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

Six board members were at the board table for the December 19th WPA board meeting - Jacky Walton, Garrison, Williams, Vasey, John Walton, Phillips.  Those absent were:  Johnson, McMillin, Anderson.  

Seven residents attended the meeting.  It is a busy time of the year, and for those of you who were not in attendance, you missed a good meeting - a meeting that could hold promise for Wedgefield if the board follows through.  Read the highlights, and I think you'll see the promise of some of the motions, and the direction they might take us in.

*The minutes were approved for three board meetings.  1) The October 17, 2017 - regular board meeting.  2) The November 30th closed board meeting - election by the board of the officers of the board, and the appointment of committee chairs by the president. Please note:  There is a standing legal opinion that states that this meeting should be OPEN to the residents.  As residents we don't have a vote, but this meeting should be appropriately noticed, and we should be able to see our board at work.  3) The December 11th open meeting on the 3rd try for the parking lot reconfiguration.  All minutes were passed unanimously.

*The president's report:  President Walton gave congrats to Vasey, Williams, and McMillin on their election to the board.  He reminded all board committee chairs to get their committees together, and bring nominations for committees to the board for approval.  He is making his personal cell phone number available to all board members, and if individual board members have questions, they are to bring them to him.  He thanked McMillin for the tree lighting event.  He also stated that someone had arranged for an article in the Georgetown Times that was a Wedgefield positive article.  He would like to continue with that positive look at Wedgefield, and make it even greater.

*Vice president's report:  Garrison gave congrats to newly elected board members.  He stated that when the board met on Nov. 30th to elect their officers that they informally discussed - 1) upgrading the website to have a public - "life in Wedgefield" section, and a password secured section for minutes, financials, etc.  2) a programable sign by the front to get info out - rather than paper signs  3) a possible input page - for those who like social media, to see what is going on 4) expansion of Easter Egg Hunt.  To the board:  This appears to have been a productive meeting.  It should have been open, noticed on the website, and with signage. You missed the opportunity for residents to see a productive meeting, where it looks like the board went out of their way to serve the residents of Wedgefield.  You appeared to have heard their concerns, and were willing to put things in motion that will help Wedgefield.  It is tarnished with the fact that you excluded us.

*Secretary's report:  McMillin was absent and a short report was read into the minutes, that mentions much that was included in the first two reports.

*Treasurer's report: Phillips reported a total of $504,438.62 in reserves.  She made a motion to allow the finance committee to look into another CPA, someone possibly closer.  Approved.  Again, this move to seek a different CPA could appear to fit with recent resident concerns.  

*ARC:  No report.

*Legal:  Garrison reported that a orientation was held for new board members, and they each received the policy manual, governing documents, and keys to the office.  All appropriate forms were signed, and existing board members also signed the forms again.  Garrison made a motion to add the following people to the legal committee - Jacky Walton, Butch Williams, and Adam Anderson.  Approved.  Great report in the fact that old and new board members signed the forms that would remind them all that they are committing themselves to standards of operation with their signatures.  As a resident, I would hope that every board member review the governing documents, and realize the weight of voting independently, according to what they read.  At some point at the end of the meeting, a resident was asking questions about the policy manual, and Garrison lifted his notebook that contained the documents, as an exhibit of the size and volume of the documents.  First, I thought good move on Garrison's part.  Then I looked at the rest of the board seated at the table, and it appeared that he was the only one with the notebook.  Each board member, long seated or new, should have that at their side, and know the contents so well, that they are able to vote independently, according to the content.  They all need to consider the following from a recent legal article. "III.    Association director liability

Homeowners have the right to have directors act within their fiduciary duties.  Homeowners may bring an action against a director of a community association on the grounds of breach of fiduciary duty of the director.  Directors, also sometimes referred to as Managers, Trustees, Administrators or the Executive Board, owe fiduciary duties of care to homeowners to exercise ordinary care in performing their duties, to act reasonably and in good faith in their performance of their duties as members of the governing body of the community association."

*Finance report:  Phillips motioned to nominate Bob Brice, Jacky Walton, Bob Garrison, and Larry McMillin to the finance committee.  Approved.  There was a motion made to provide a $100 Christmas bonus for the paid office staff and finance contractor.  Approved.

*Communications:  No report.

*Community Liaison:  In Anderson's absence, Garrison provided the following:

     -letter regarding no pick up (? not sure what this 

       is)

     -drainage issue

     -boat on vacant lot on John Green

*Drainage:  Vasey stated that there was no report.  President Walton added that there were drainage issues on lots 490 and 491.  One was a recent build, and the other built about a year ago.  The president will get this information to Vasey, and update him about what was going on.

*Water Amenities:  John Walton said that there was no report.  He made a motion to nominate Adam Anderson, Chris Carroll, Jamie Cristello, Larry McMillin, Steve Vasey, and Ed Wozniak to the committee.  Approved.  I was surprised that there was no report, or update from this chair and committee, on so many issues - the spoil site, the number of people who have signed onto the dredging, the figures for the dredging, and the proposed start for the dredging.  Like what I have to say, or not, this whole project is riddled with secrecy - lack of openness, conflicting fact of adherence to governing documents, and truth to how we got anywhere near this commitment of assessment dollars.  It would seem that legal - openly and honestly, needs to review everything leading to this point.  Compliance should be taking a long review also.

*Condo Liaison:  Vasey discussed a lamp post in the condo area.

*Roads:  Garrison read the report in Anderson's absence.  Hearthneck was approved as a member of the committee.  The speed bump surveys indicate that we are a divided association on this issue.  More time will be needed for a determination.

*Grounds:  McMillin's report was read in his absence.  The following people were nominated and approved for the committee:  Dale (missed last name), Steve Vasey, the McMahons, Phillips.

*Compliance:  Williams stated that there was no report.  He is studying the policy manual.  Good for him.  It appears that he is taking necessary preparation to move forward in this position.

*Old business:  None

*New Business:  There were three items under new business.  1)  Garrison made a motion to investigate the cost of updating the Reserve Study. Once they talk to them, the board can come back and attach a figure to approve.  It could even be a new vendor.  Approved.  Again, we should be pleased that this is being considered.  There have been resident questions regarding this.  Consideration is a good move by the board.  2) President Walton was next up under new business.  He motioned to add a committee to the board - the website committee.  It was approved, and he will chair it.  He stated that there was a lot to be considered.  You'll note some of the ideas that came out of the conversations of the board at the meeting on November 30th.  3)  President Walton then motioned the nomination of Madeline Claveloux to the committee.  Approved.

Resident comments:
1) Member has a problem left by Hurricane Matthew.  Trees on adjacent lot blew down over drainage area.  The trees were cut up but big pieces left laying, and they are too large for the resident to handle.  He states that it wouldn't take more than half an hour for the grounds crew to come and remove them.

2) Member states reserve study needs consideration of inaccurate figures on roads as it relates to basic table measurement - square footage always off "big time".  I hope I got this correct.

3) Member asks when the WPA September 19, 2017 monthly meeting minutes will be approved.

4) Member would like the committee members listed for residents.  Discussion moves from possibly the Wragg, to other areas of communication.  At another point in this discussion a member says that it would be useful to know who to call.  President Walton says that in all cases, residents need to put their concerns in writing to the board.  This was a moment that made my heart happy.  It is time that all residents are on equal footing - have to follow a process required by everyone to get assistance from the board - any member of it.  How many times have we heard from board members as they put a motion forward for one thing, or another, "I've had a lot of complaints".  Yet, when one reviews the correspondence file, there aren't any.  Board members, it puts your individual votes at the time of that misinformation, in question - as to your individual - independent vote, based on real research, and real information. Again a quote from an HOA legal article:
Directors must exercise reasonable diligence in following through and carrying out the responsibilities assumed by or assigned to them under the governing legal documents.  Generally, directors must remain informed about the community association’s business at all times, be knowledgeable about the legal documents governing the affairs of the association, and attend and participate in the association meetings.  Directors may be held responsible for obtaining and reading the minutes of those association meetings the director was unable to attend.  Directors must also vote against actions taken or adopted by the Board of Directors that they are in disagreement with and record their disagreement in the meeting minutes.  Failure to perform any of these duties in a reasonably diligent and prudent manner could expose the director to liability to homeowners for breach of fiduciary duty."

There was a little more back and forth regarding the policy manual, and whether residents could have hard copy printed by the office - changes voted in, and how then those could be added, should it be on a disk to residents - offered as a possibility at one time in the discussion, etc.  

A few more thoughts and comments, on my own observation of the meeting.  Residents, you missed something new from this board.  I left the meeting for the first time, in years, feeling that just maybe there was some change in the air - just maybe your board was listening, and trying to do something about some of the issues.  I felt for the first time in a long time, that a resident could stand up, ask a question, and wasn't attacked by a member of the board.  I appreciated the restraint that that might have taken by some on the board.  We've deserved better if we are interested enough to attend these meetings, and it looks like we are on our way to respectful tolerance.  Thank you board!

I had calls last night and this morning.  Word travels fast.  There was a loss of speech at the fact that I agreed to be considered for a committee, a new committee, and was approved in a vote.  Next, came questions about the blog.  Would I have to give it up?  I don't think so.  I'm an independent thinker, with a lot of non profit board experience, and I doubt that the board approved me thinking I will quit the blog.  I'm smart enough to know that if we move forward with a committee membership, that I'll know what I'm allowed to do on my blog, as it relates to the committee position.  I will continue to have the right as a free resident, to observe the board at work, and comment as I see fit.  I have always said that the blog could shut down if the board operated according to our governing documents.  It isn't time to close down, but last night, for the first time in a long time, I felt things were getting better.  One night is not proof positive, but a chance.

P.S.  To the three residents who discussed my appointment, and in good humor said "they would like to be a fly on the wall during those committee meetings", I say this.  "I'm bringing a fly swat to the meetings".

Merry Christmas!

    

  

I CAN'T WAIT TO GO TO TONIGHT'S WPA MEETING. I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR AN ANSWER FROM AN OFFICER OF THE BOARD, TO THE QUESTION I POSED AT THE ANNUAL MEETING. I HAVEN'T BEEN CONTACTED IN OVER A MONTH. DO YOU THINK THE BOARD WILL ANSWER TONIGHT? I HOPE SO!

I'M WAITING FOR AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION I ASKED AT THE ANNUAL MEETING.  I'M HOPING THE BOARD WILL ANSWER THE QUESTION DURING THE LEGAL REPORT, OR THE COMPLIANCE REPORT AT THE BOARD MEETING THIS EVENING.  I'M NOT HOLDING OUT MUCH HOPE, BUT WILL WAIT AND SEE.  WHY NOT MUCH HOPE?  AN OFFICER OF THE BOARD CAME TO TALK TO ME TWICE DURING THE ANNUAL MEETING, AND TOLD ME SHE/HE WOULD BE CONTACTING ME TO DISCUSS THE PROBLEM CONTAINED IN THE QUESTION TO THE BOARD.  THAT HASN'T HAPPENED.

Readers, I'm reposting a November 2011 article.  As I checked the back pages of the blog, a few people were researching this far back.  Right in the middle of this article that discusses the 2011 annual meeting, the by-law that was passed by the residents that year is noted.   Here it is:  Policy Manual Changes:  "A motion to change the Policy Manual must be presented at an open Board Meeting posted on the WPA website for resident comments, and  not voted on until the following meeting."  Your board has passed many, many, policy manual changes, many of which give them more immediate spending power, without posting the changes between first and second reading, on the WPA website.  I asked them at the annual meeting if they were going to rescind all of those actions, until they did the right thing.  The board said they were going to look into it.  What is to look into?  They haven't posted them, and they failed to follow a by-law for years.  They didn't even legally register the by-law for a year and a half.  The officer of the board who said she/he would be contacting me, said "they didn't know".  How could you not know?  This person has been on the board for about 9 years!

See you at the meeting tonight!

HERE IS THE ARTICLE FROM 2011: 
"The 2011 Annual Meeting - A Look Back In Hope of Moving Forward", published on November 26, 2011

THE ANNUAL MEETING

The Wedgefield Plantation Association Annual Meeting was held on November 19th, at 10:00 AM, at Georgetown High School Auditorium.  The Board Members in attendance were Wilson, Walton, McBride, Garrison, and Huggins.  Security was hired for the meeting. Huggins certified the mailing, and it was announced that there was a quorum.  Nominations from the floor were called for three times.  There were no nonimations from the floor.  

When it was announced that the ballots would be collected, a dispute developed.  A few residents began to call out as they stood in the aisle, stating they weren't going to be allowed to vote.  One stated he had driven from North Myrtle Beach and was only a few minutes late.  Another resident, wanted to turn in a friend's proxy because the friend had intended to be there, but now had a sick mother and husband.  Others complained that their friends had been turned away because they were late, and had left the building.  It was stated that there was no time limit printed in the mailing.  When all was said and done, those there were provided ballots, those who had left were called and allowed to vote, and the person who had brought a friend's proxy was not allowed to vote.  Three important notes:  (1) Garrison served as Election Inspector, during a tough meeting and appeared to weigh each concern as they arose during the day, ethically and in the best interests of the community.  (2) Residents, elections have been lost and won by one or two votes.  Consider using your proxy to get your vote counted.  You can still opt to attend the meeting.  Too many times, life gets in the way of our opportunity to attend the meeting and vote.  (3)  Board Members, consider making a file titled "2012 Annual Meeting Preparation" and add a note regarding this issue.  This is not a criticism of the Board.  Do you realize that the Board Secretary just about has to start from scratch each year, in developing this package?

The counting began by the Election Committee and one of the next orders of business was approval of the 2009 and 2010 Annual Meeting Minutes.  That's right, they had to approve two years of minutes. During the 2010 Annual Meeting, when they prepared to approve the 2009 Annual Meeting minutes there were substantial errors.   Some wanted the minutes from both meetings read.  Those who didn't, scoffed, but they were read.  Again, the 2009 minutes had errors.  McBride read both sets, despite guff from some in the audience.

A Concerned Citizen wanted an opinion from one of their attorneys regarding the canals added to the minutes.  It didn't happen, but this is how far down hill - a slippery slope, we've come to in the recent history of our governance.

Some residents complained aloud that the meeting was more like a monthly meeting, rather than an Annual Meeting.  It was disorganized and at times Huggins apologized, as Board Secretary.

At one point in the meeting a Concerned Citizen asked if the declaratory judgement from the October 3rd, 2011 court hearing could be read into the record.  It was explained to her that while there was a court ruling, that it was not a declaratory judgement.  McBride said that he had a copy and would read it into the record.

"ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS (COUNTERCLAIMS STILL ACTIVE)"

Before we begin a few important "time" details:  In the Court of Common Pleas, C/A No.09-CP-22-1675, was signed by Larry B. Hyman, Jr., Judge, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, on November 16, 2011.  It was filed in the court record on November 22, 2011.

Note:  If you would like to receive a complete PDF copy, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner  at the following address and I'll be happy to send it to you.  Here is the address:  wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com.

What does this have to do with the Annual Meeting and the election of Board Members?  Plenty!  First, the Concerned Citizen candidates ran on a platform that stated they won on October 3rd.  They made promises of residents getting their canal assessments back, there were errors in the canal bank loan, etc., right up until the day of the Annual Meeting.  They asked for your vote, your support, under false premise.  This lawsuit brought by Zieske, Wilson, and Thomas, supported by their Concerned Citizen members, has been fought out at our Board table over the last two years.  During that time they recalled two Board Members, under SC Non Profit Law, removed a Board President who had received more votes than anyone in the history of the WPA, refused a recall petition brought under the same laws, and  held back fact, from members of their own support network.   

Here are a few important quotes from the document:

"The parties have stipulated that the State owns the beds to the canals as they are navigable tidal waterways and no statute grants the State's ownership rights to another party. See, State v. Pacific Guano Co., 22S.C .50, 84, 1884 WL 4624, 22 (1884).  Because none of the other issues in this involve the State, the parties stipulate that the State may be dismissed as a party to this case.  The State, Plaintiff's and other named Defendants acknowledge that this Order in no way addresses any rights, duties or obligations of the Board of Directors for Wedgefield Plantation Association regarding the maintenance, dredging or any other activity pertaining to the canals and, therefore, this Order,  in no way, addresses or rules upon those rights, duties, or obligations."

"The Defendants specifically deny any wrongdoing associated with the votes for the dredging of the canals, the financing of the dredging of the canals and the collection of assessments from the members of the Wedgefield Plantation Association and for any other acts allegedly performed by these defendants and more fully described in the complaint and, therefore, this Order, in no way, finds or establishes any such wrongdoing by the Defendants."

Review the article at this site titled, "Where's The Beef".  The campaign letter described in the article arrived at my home around November 6th, long after the Oct. 3rd hearing.  Review the statements they made in an effort to secure your vote and give them the power to continue on their destructive path, on your assessment dollars. You might say, "well they lost the election".  I've heard that the votes were close, which means many of our residents didn't take the time to ask to review records and force these individuals to prove what they were saying.  It takes time to write and ask for a response or to review a document, and go to the office to review, but this is where we live, and if we want to move forward we have to get the facts.  

THE RESULTS

In the end, our residents spoke. Zieske, Thomas, and Wilson, the very individuals who brought the lawsuit, launched a 2011 campaign to bring it to the Board table at your expense, lost.  The winners were:  three year terms for McBride, Cline, and McMillin, and one year terms for DeMarchi and Walters.

One By-Law Amendment passed:  Policy Manual Changes:  "A motion to change the Policy Manual must be presented at an open Board Meeting posted on the WPA website for resident comments, and  not voted on until the following meeting."

Our 2011 candidates all had a lot to say.  Hold on to their platforms and writings and watch and see if they walk the talk.   For those who say, "we won", you won't know that for sure until you follow their actions and votes at the Board table.

A SPECIAL NOTE:  Huggins apologized for the lack of organization.  Our office secretary was sick a few days prior to the meeting.  She couldn't help illness, but those last few days are time intensive.  It takes a lot of advance preparation for the sign in, counting, etc.  Two people stepped forward to help the effort:  Peggy Phillips and Jude Davis.  They each deserve a big thank you for all that they did, to help move forward.

DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT?  YOU CAN WRITE THE EDITOR AT:  wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com.  I'll be happy to publish your comments.

YOUR BOARD CAN'T CLAIM ANY WISDOM IN GIVING MCMILLIN HIS CHRISTMAS PRESENT - RECONFIGURING THE OFFICE PARKING LOT. WISDOM IN DECISION MAKING - THE VOTE 3 MONTHS IN A ROW OF A PROJECT RIDDLED WITH DECEPTION AND TOO MANY COINCIDENTAL OOPS, WENT DOWN THE DRAIN, AND THERE WAS NO THOUGHT OF "THE BEST INTERESTS OF WEDGEFIELD", BUDGET, OR GOVERNING ACCORDING TO OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS. YET, THE NEW REVISED - ACCORDING TO THE WHIMS AND DEMANDS OF MCMILLIN - HIS MONUMENT - THE REVISED PARKING LOT WENT IN TODAY. BA HUMBUG MCMILLIN! SORRY RESIDENTS, THIS IS NOTHING BUT COAL IN YOUR RESIDENT STOCKING FOR CHRISTMAS.

REAGAN HAD NEVER VISITED WEDGEFIELD, BUT HE SPEAKS TO THE MISUSE OF OUR ASSESSMENTS BY THIS BOARD

TWO NEW POSTINGS WENT UP IN THE LAST 24 HOURS

THERE IS A BOARD MEETING ON TUESDAY. WILL YOU MAKE AN EFFORT TO ATTEND?

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER MASCOT, BRADY SAY'S

"TIS THE SEASON, BUT BOARD MEETINGS ARE IMPORTANT.  THIS IS WHERE WE LIVE, AND OFTEN YOUR BOARD, IN DOING THEIR OWN THING, RATHER THAN WHAT OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS PROMISED US, FORGET HOW IMPORTANT WEDGEFIELD - OUR HOME, IS TO US.  SHOW THEM YOU CARE, AND THAT YOU ARE WATCHING, BY GETTING TO THE BOARD MEETINGS."

THE OPEN BOARD MEETING ON DECEMBER 11TH LEAVES SANTA CARRYING A BAG OF TRICKS TO SECURE MCMILLIN'S OFFICE PARKING LOT, AND IT COULD APPEAR THAT OUR RECENT ELECTION OF TWO NEW BOARD MEMBERS HAS ADDED MORE ELVES TO THIS SLEIGH RIDE!

BOARD MEMBER MCMILLIN MUST HAVE BEEN DANCING WITH THE BOARD'S CHRISTMAS PRESENT TO HIM AT OUR EXPENSE - APPROVAL OF HIS PARKING LOT FOR THE THIRD TIME IN AS MANY MONTHS!  TWO NEWLY ELECTED BOARD MEMBERS VOTED WITH THE REST OF THE BOARD TO APPROVE HIS HI-JINXED PROJECT!

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

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 was unable to attend the December 11th open board meeting, but I have contacted a few people who attended the meeting.  I mean a few - there were only 4-6 residents who attended the meeting.  It was short, but certainly not productive for the "best interests of Wedgefield", but the onset of another three years of McMillin's selfish antics.  What was even more dismaying was the vote by the two new board members to approve the project - add two more shovels to the snow job of the board.

I've been told that the meeting had to be called because McMillin's board approved vendor for the project, Love Concrete told McMillin that they were too busy to do his job and recommended he find someone else.  McMillin called Creative Concret Solutions of Conway and they gave him a price of $2400 for the same specs.  Seven board members voted to approve, including the two newly elected.  Anderson and Johnson were absent.

Unlike most board meetings, including the rare open meetings, the board wasn't interested in resident comments.  However, it been noted that one resident did speak up, and had a issue with the project, and president Walton, and Garrison told him that he was the only one who had an issue with it.  REALLY?????? When McMillin brought the project to the board table for the first time a few months ago, even Garrison asked who wanted it besides him!

We have to follow this project from the beginning to see just how twisted it is.

I attended the September 2017 board meeting, and reported the following:
"How did all this go down?  McMillin announces that he has sought bids to reconfigure the parking lot.  He has two bids.  The first company from Conway bid $2,600 - $3,000.  The second, Love Concrete bid $2,300, on the entire job, and can complete it in 2 days.  It should be noted that earlier in the week, the grass around the parking lot was marked with paint lines - evidently certainty that this board would approve.  He reports that he has enough in his budget on line item - 65-100.  Additionally he notes that he'll need another $200 for his do-it-yourself painting of lines, and direction arrows.  Cline seconds his motion for $2,500 for the reconfiguration of the parking lot.  Garrison asks if he has the bids in writing, and McMillin pats some papers at his side. (Someone should write and ask to review the whole bid process.)  Garrison continues in his snaky role by asking who besides McMillin , who has been pushing this for 5 years needs this?  McMillin responds by telling him to ask Johnson who has a big truck.  Yes, Johnson can see problems.  Then McMillin says, "I think I should have done this when I designed it, but we were trying to save money, etc."  McMillin asks President Walton since he has a truck whether it is a problem.  His truck isn't as big as their trucks, but when the WVA (condo meeting) meets there on a few Saturday's, it can be a problem.  At some point McMillin is passing his drawing of parking places, and mentions he is moving the handicapped parking space somewhere off to the side.  Johnson mentions specs for public places requirements for the handicapped.  McMillin says in upset, "I've only seen one handicapped person in what ten years?????  He isn't happy, but conversation at the table causes him to say that he will leave it where it is if has to, but it is going to mess up his parking plan!"

I attended the October 2017 meeting and this is what I reported at the time.

"CLUE # 5:  This clue comes humorously forward during the October board meeting.  It's our assessment dollars, and your board's - as Garrison has stated "so what are you going to do about it?" - attitude of we don't have to follow the governing documents, which by the way - look at the revision date - they WROTE.  McMillin becomes the chief comedian.  He reports at the October meeting, that he made an error on the parking lot proposal.  The actual bid from the cement contractor wasn't $2,300, it was $2,800, and of course you'd have to add the $200 more for painting the lines, etc. for a total of $3,000.  He states that it is his problem of "bad eyes and a weak mind".  Those dang glasses, should have had them!  What were they missing every time he had touched that bid?  If he had followed the governing documents, and provided a review of proposal etc., to everyone of the board members as required to review before a vote, maybe some of them would have had their glasses and noticed it.  The rest of the board (only Anderson is absent), adds themselves to the comedy crew line up, as McMillin motions his selfish parking lot redesign to cost $3000.  John Walton seconds the motion, and your whole board approves, including Ebert, who voted "NO" on the $2,500 at the September meeting.  Let's use a recent Garrisonism "who got to you" Ebert?  I got this part, it was your corrupt board!" 

So the meeting on December 11th brought not only McMillin's willfulness - I want what I want, and this board will support me, because they need my vote when they are ridiculous, and illegal (against the governing documents), and I don't care if the residents don't need or want the change to the parking lot.  

I close providing the governing document that through all three board meetings, every board member failed to responsibly, and ethically review, before they voted "yes".  The vote on December 11th is the worst, because two new board members that we hoped would change things voted yes to give McMillin his way, without due diligence.  Here is the quote from the policy manual, which many on this board had voted to change in 2015 - and still there is no adherence. "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. (Rev. 6/16/15)"

 I somewhat understand your tolerance of what McMillin does at the board table.  You might be concerned that he will do to you, as he has to me for speaking out.  Yet, some of you are easily offended by what I write, and it appears that you aren't offended by his crudeness, and neither is your board, because they allowed him to retaliate against me, by putting this offense display on his house, with my house number on it.  Your board couldn't get him to take it down, and called it a Christmas decoration.  MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU ALL MCMILLIN STYLE.

  

THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER HOPES TO BEGIN PUBLISHING ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12TH.

WE'VE BEEN BUSY CELEBRATING AN EARLY CHRISTMAS.  MY YOUNGEST DAUGHTER CAME OUT OF THE HOSPITAL IN CT TO CELEBRATE IN OUR HOME, AND HER OLDEST SISTER, AND HUSBAND, CAME FROM MICHIGAN, TO HELP ME MANAGE, WITH TWO OF MY FAMILY MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN WELL.  IT WAS A GREAT EARLY CELEBRATION.

MORE DISCUSSION ON YOUR BOARD'S COMPLIANCE DISCUSSION

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

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, the following is a little follow up on yesterday's article, "THE 2018 WPA BOARD PRESENTS THE BOARD OFFICERS, AND THE PRESIDENT'S APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE CHAIRS.", and contains a message to the board officer who came to me twice the day of the 2017 annual meeting.  Here is a quote from the above mentioned article. 

"Twice during my time at the annual meeting, I was approached by a board officer, and told that that officer "didn't realize that".  The second time on that day, the board officer, told me that he/she would contact me after the meeting to discuss this.  So far no call has come my way to meet.  I won't take time to prove the violation in this writing that the board has failed to follow the approved resident by-law."  At the time, the board officer seemed sincere to me, why???, as I reflect now, I don't know.  How could she/he say that they didn't know?  How could any board member, let alone a board officer not know?  Who has been mixing the kool aide on that board that they blindly follow, and ignore the very guiding documents, that they are suppose to govern us by?  PRINTED IN QUOTES, AND UNDERLINED BELOW IS A QUOTE FROM A SC HOA LEGAL ARTICLE, ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY OF EACH AND EVERY BOARD MEMBER'S RESPONSIBILITY.

"III.    Association director liability

Homeowners have the right to have directors act within their fiduciary duties.  Homeowners may bring an action against a director of a community association on the grounds of breach of fiduciary duty of the director.  Directors, also sometimes referred to as Managers, Trustees, Administrators or the Executive Board, owe fiduciary duties of care to homeowners to exercise ordinary care in performing their duties, to act reasonably and in good faith in their performance of their duties as members of the governing body of the community association.

Directors must exercise reasonable diligence in following through and carrying out the responsibilities assumed by or assigned to them under the governing legal documents.  Generally, directors must remain informed about the community association’s business at all times, be knowledgeable about the legal documents governing the affairs of the association, and attend and participate in the association meetings.  Directors may be held responsible for obtaining and reading the minutes of those association meetings the director was unable to attend.  Directors must also vote against actions taken or adopted by the Board of Directors that they are in disagreement with and record their disagreement in the meeting minutes.  Failure to perform any of these duties in a reasonably diligent and prudent manner could expose the director to liability to homeowners for breach of fiduciary duty."

Ignorance is never a escape in the law.  Just so the board officer knows, that she/he can't plead ignorance in any circumstance - not under the law - not under our governing documents, but she/he speaks an untruth, even in her/his communication with me on that day.  Below, is an article posted in June of 2013.
Your board was put on notice in 2013, even before, and since, but look what came out then.
 
BLOG ARTICLE POSTED JUNE 5TH 2013
Your board has finally posted the 2011 by-law change, voted into the by-laws at the annual meeting in November 2011.  It is quite simple and very clear.  It states, "A motion to change the policy manual must be presented at an open board meeting, post on the Wedgefield Plantation Association website for resident comments, and NOT voted on until the following Board meeting."

Your board has made rapid changes in the policy manual for about a year.  Go back to the agenda and minutes for the last twelve months.  There is rarely a month that changes to the policy manual have not been presented.  Your board has failed to follow the by-law EVERY TIME!  They have never POSTED the changes on the WPA website for resident comments. They were well aware of the by-law, although ignorance is never a defense.  They brought their changes to the board table two consecutive months, voting the second month.  WHAT DIDN'T THEY WANT YOU TO SEE AND COMMENT ON.  I guess it is strike while the iron is hot and don't worry who gets burned.

I'm aware of the resident who wrote the amendment, and others who would have if they hadn't.  The proposed by-law change was written after residents were angered over then treasurer McMillin's quick, on the spot changes to the policy manual to lower the standards of the individual who would maintain our financial books.  He also lowered the bonding required for the individual he wanted to hire.  That individual would have to pay for their own bonding.  One of the changes to the policy manual recently presented by treasurer DeMarchi goes back to how and who will maintain our books.  He told us at two meetings, never completely read the changes out loud, and never put the changes up on the WPA website.  During the May meeting, we find out that he has further reduced the bonding of the person he wishes to hire, and we will pay for his/her bonding!  While DeMarchi's latest is important, they are all important because they appear to keep changing things to suit their next favored project. 

When I went to review records May 21, day of the board meeting, I was told that legal chair Garrison was checking with the attorney to see if it was filed?????? What does that mean?  Is Garrison and your board going to try and use that as a scape hatch for not following the by-law?  I hope not.  Your board, should have to rescind EVERY policy manual change, back to the date YOU and I approved this by-law change!!!!!!   They certainly acted IMMEDIATELY on the votes that YOU and I cast on that same date to put some of them in office!

Garrison reported at the May 21 meeting that the by-law had been filed.  He did not speak to why the board didn't follow it, what the ramifications were of filed versus not, or what your board was going to about this injustice.  The document HAD NOT BEEN FILED ON MAY 21.  The document was filed on May 22, 2013.  

I don't believe a word they say.  They do what they want, how they want to, ignore our votes, won't answer us and just move on according to their misdirected rule of governing documents, and honesty.

One more example of their word:



THE POSTED BY-LAW IS PRESENTED BELOW: