************************************************
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, when I checked the back page of the blog stats this morning, someone else must be concerned about our accounting - a term that I wouldn't use for the mess this board has been building on for years - prior to 2013, but certainly a marker on the grave of sound business practice here in Wedgefield. Reviewing this documented article again this morning, quite frankly just irked me - an insult to most people's intelligence! I found it timely to republish this 2013 article. I stand by my research, and comments then, and even more so today. Why? All the promise to legitimize this critical function of the board, after a glimmer of promise during the December 2017 WPA board meeting - our treasurer was going to look into a accountant, was somewhat dashed immediately following the meeting, when your fellow residents began to call almost immediately following the December meeting, laughingly telling me they had a good guess of who the accountant would be - someone close to the Wedgefield clubs. I still had some hope. I was sure this "we have all the expertise - we know what we are doing - trust us" board was turning over a new leaf, as it relates to this tarnished accounting function. Surely, a proper request for proposal would be written, a sealed bid process put in place, and a review of bids, a motion, and a discussion, and a vote at the board table - out in the open as should be. As I sat in the January meeting, nothing had really happened, and there was nothing to report. It just appeared to be the same old action plan - throw something good out there, and then just go back to their regular type of cloak and dagger operation.
Do I expect too much? I don't think so. Another resident stood at the annual meeting and asked about accounting, and an accountant, saying it was the responsible thing to do with over a half million dollars in reserves, and a place this size. I suspect that when I printed the fact that some residents were guessing who the treasurer had in mind, and the accountant would come out of the club friendships, that the board had been found out, and they just stepped over the issue completely. Really? We deserve an accountant, a sound statement of expectations, credential requirements for the industry, and a process that meets our governing document requirements for contracting, and has sound business practice fundamentals. Wait a minute, at the same January meeting, the reserve study traveled down the same ridiculous path. Why would anyone expect anything different from this board??????
PUBLISHED ON THE BLOG MAY 25, 2013
"THE ACCOUNTANT JOB DESCRIPTION"
PLEASE NOTE: Designed by then board member DeMarchi, and approved then by board members, most of which continue to sit on this board. Here's the article.
I visited the office on the May 22. One of the items that I wanted to review was the Accountant Job Description. I did not request a COPY when I wrote. I try never to put our staff Kathy in the middle of things, so I hand copied it word for word. I've typed it for you.
ACCOUNTANT JOB DESCRIPTION
The accountant performs a variety of general accounting support tasks in an accounting department including:
*Verifying the accuracy of invoices and other accounting documents or records.
*Up date and maintain accounting journals, ledgers and other records detailing financial business transactions (e.g.), disbursements, expense vouchers, receipts, accounts payable.
*Enters data into computer system using deferred computer programs
*Compile data and prepare a variety of reports with supporting reports (e.g.), P & L income statement, cash disbursements, aging reports, etc.
*Reconciles records with internal transactions and management, or external vendors or customers.
*Recommends actions to resolve discrepancies and investigating questionable data.
Qualifications:
*Competency in Microsoft applications including Word, Excel and Outlook
*Organizational, verbal and written communication skills a must
*Attention to detail and ability to multi-task is an asset
*Requires 2 years experience
*Must sign a "Confidentiality Agreement" regarding financial and personal information relative to the association.
COMMENTS:
First, take away the paid staff person and the new contractor. The following comments are "in general", under sound business practice, in dealing with the financial resources, collected from approximately 577 individual property owners, to be managed by a board in benefit of the place we live, fairly, and with sound judgment. This is not individual home finance or a little "mom and pop" private enterprise. The comments are not directed at the staff or contractor. This is a situation created by our treasurer and board, and not about individual staff or service provider.
Where are the real qualifications: the education requirements, professional designations such as CPA, accounting degree, or as may be the case - bookkeeping. They can't be found anywhere. This description could have been written by President Clinton, known for dissecting words like the, and, an, of, etc. If I needed an accountant and I asked you who your accountant was, I'm sure it would be a CPA. The board spent some time at the May board meeting going around the merry go round of the word accountant, when asked if the new contractor was our accountant. I believe we may have been left with two bookkeepers, one reviewing the other's work, managed by our board treasurer - the accounting department???? Does the treasurer have an accounting degree? I don't believe so. I don't believe anyone on the board is a CPA. At least call it what it is, have the guts to publish it for review and comment, as required by our newest by-law.
Often, if an employer has an individual they would like to fill a position, whether the individual is currently employed in the company, or from the outside, they will write the specifications to meet the skills, ability, and education of the person they wish to hire. Is that the case here? This move often, is not in the best interests of the organization, but tailored to meet the agenda of the interviewer, the supervisor.
We were advised by the board at the May meeting that the new person is a contractor. Was this "contractor job" put out to bid? There were other contractor jobs put out to bid and the bids were opened at the May meeting. Why not this, unless the description was written to match the skills of the candidate someone on your board had it mind?
All the requirements have been reduced. During the May meeting, our treasurer made a motion for the WPA to pay up to $400 per year to bond our employee and new contractor, at $50,000 each. A few years ago when McMillin changed the wording - dumbed down the CPA to really - bookkeeping, he also reduced bonding from $200,000 to $100,000, because that was the level of bonding "his favored candidate" could provide. McMillin stated during the May meeting, that his person had to pay their own bonding. This is a big downward slide and you are going to pay for reduced credibility and security. In the end, McMillin stated that the new contractor, "worked cheap". RUMOR IS the contractor will work for approximately $50 a month. You get what you pay for and we deserve first class management of our assessment dollars.
If your treasurer and board were proud of what they were doing they would have handled all of these decisions, discussed openly - not in closed meetings, followed the newest by-law and published this watered down version of a job description, contracted for services properly, and told us EXACTLY what it was going to cost. The board has taken us backwards, because you allow it.
P.S. What experience? Where? How long? HOA experience? Was it just the experience that will fit what this treasurer and board want to do?
COMMENTS:
First, take away the paid staff person and the new contractor. The following comments are "in general", under sound business practice, in dealing with the financial resources, collected from approximately 577 individual property owners, to be managed by a board in benefit of the place we live, fairly, and with sound judgment. This is not individual home finance or a little "mom and pop" private enterprise. The comments are not directed at the staff or contractor. This is a situation created by our treasurer and board, and not about individual staff or service provider.
Where are the real qualifications: the education requirements, professional designations such as CPA, accounting degree, or as may be the case - bookkeeping. They can't be found anywhere. This description could have been written by President Clinton, known for dissecting words like the, and, an, of, etc. If I needed an accountant and I asked you who your accountant was, I'm sure it would be a CPA. The board spent some time at the May board meeting going around the merry go round of the word accountant, when asked if the new contractor was our accountant. I believe we may have been left with two bookkeepers, one reviewing the other's work, managed by our board treasurer - the accounting department???? Does the treasurer have an accounting degree? I don't believe so. I don't believe anyone on the board is a CPA. At least call it what it is, have the guts to publish it for review and comment, as required by our newest by-law.
Often, if an employer has an individual they would like to fill a position, whether the individual is currently employed in the company, or from the outside, they will write the specifications to meet the skills, ability, and education of the person they wish to hire. Is that the case here? This move often, is not in the best interests of the organization, but tailored to meet the agenda of the interviewer, the supervisor.
We were advised by the board at the May meeting that the new person is a contractor. Was this "contractor job" put out to bid? There were other contractor jobs put out to bid and the bids were opened at the May meeting. Why not this, unless the description was written to match the skills of the candidate someone on your board had it mind?
All the requirements have been reduced. During the May meeting, our treasurer made a motion for the WPA to pay up to $400 per year to bond our employee and new contractor, at $50,000 each. A few years ago when McMillin changed the wording - dumbed down the CPA to really - bookkeeping, he also reduced bonding from $200,000 to $100,000, because that was the level of bonding "his favored candidate" could provide. McMillin stated during the May meeting, that his person had to pay their own bonding. This is a big downward slide and you are going to pay for reduced credibility and security. In the end, McMillin stated that the new contractor, "worked cheap". RUMOR IS the contractor will work for approximately $50 a month. You get what you pay for and we deserve first class management of our assessment dollars.
If your treasurer and board were proud of what they were doing they would have handled all of these decisions, discussed openly - not in closed meetings, followed the newest by-law and published this watered down version of a job description, contracted for services properly, and told us EXACTLY what it was going to cost. The board has taken us backwards, because you allow it.
P.S. What experience? Where? How long? HOA experience? Was it just the experience that will fit what this treasurer and board want to do?
