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.
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.
