IF YOU ATTENDED THE DECEMBER 2017 WPA BOARD MEETING, YOU MIGHT HAVE COME AWAY WITH SOME HOPE THAT PLANNING, AND SOME SMALL STEPS TO GOOD GOVERNANCE WAS ON UPCOMING AGENDAS.
AFTER, THE JANUARY 2018 WPA BOARD MEETING, MUCH OF THE HOPE WAS DASHED, AND WE WERE OFFERED THE BOARD'S JUGGLING ON THE STAGE OF WEDGEFIELD'S GOVERNANCE, INSTEAD, AND QUITE FRANKLY, IF IT WASN'T SO RIDICULOUSLY STAGED, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A COMEDY.
************************************************
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, I've provided a quote from a posting I wrote after the December 2017 board meeting. It was positive. Here it is:
"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!" From another December posting: "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."
Here are the items discussed during the December meeting that made me think that maybe there was hope, and an update on each of them during the January meeting.
*From the December meeting I said: "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."
During the January meeting it was stated that there was no report on this yet - no update on the role an accountant might play - a job description of sorts that might indicate what role the accountant would play, no indication of what the selection process - request for proposal would look like. Are these questions to soon, to much, to expect in a month? I don't think so, based on the inadequate system, we currently have in place, and how we got there through this secretive board. Remember, there were people speculating after the December meeting that they knew who would be named - and it came out of Wedgefield's clubs.
*From the December meeting I said: "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."
I left the January meeting feeling we were going no place with the reserve study. Why? Garrison reported that he had researched a price to update the old reserve study with the current vendor. The price was $3,246,00. He went on to say that this vendor was the most reasonable at the time. McMillin jumped in and said several things. The current one was not realistic. That there were errors. He didn't think that it it would give us anything we don't have here. The board has a fine record of knowing what they are doing. No one else on the board appeared to have questions, and no one moved anything forward. It appears that the board was just bouncing balls in the air in December, and by January ready to leave this important consideration air bound to land in the pile of mismanaged board debris. Does anyone on that board think for themselves, and work in our behalf toward good governance? I stand by my researched review leading up to the last reserve study, and minus a few new board members who didn't speak up, we got the same self serving crew.
There is more to add to this article, but we continue to have medical issues in our home, and I'm a first things first kind of person. Part II will be added ASAP. What's next? Compliance, a new committee, spoil site, and where was our president during the January meeting?
______________________________________
Here are the items discussed during the December meeting that made me think that maybe there was hope, and an update on each of them during the January meeting.
*From the December meeting I said: "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."
*From the December meeting I said: "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."
I left the January meeting feeling we were going no place with the reserve study. Why? Garrison reported that he had researched a price to update the old reserve study with the current vendor. The price was $3,246,00. He went on to say that this vendor was the most reasonable at the time. McMillin jumped in and said several things. The current one was not realistic. That there were errors. He didn't think that it it would give us anything we don't have here. The board has a fine record of knowing what they are doing. No one else on the board appeared to have questions, and no one moved anything forward. It appears that the board was just bouncing balls in the air in December, and by January ready to leave this important consideration air bound to land in the pile of mismanaged board debris. Does anyone on that board think for themselves, and work in our behalf toward good governance? I stand by my researched review leading up to the last reserve study, and minus a few new board members who didn't speak up, we got the same self serving crew.
There is more to add to this article, but we continue to have medical issues in our home, and I'm a first things first kind of person. Part II will be added ASAP. What's next? Compliance, a new committee, spoil site, and where was our president during the January meeting?
