************************************************
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."
