Updated Wed. Evening -ATTENTION MULTIPLE LOT OWNERS! YOUR VOTING RIGHTS ARE BEING THREATENED

NOTE:  The update is added in the paragraph immediately following the By-Law Amendment proposal.

I found the following proposed By-Law change in a white envelope, in my mail box this morning.  This is not an unusual event.  Often things are stuffed into my front door, dropped on the porch, etc.  So before we get to the subject, a message to the Board.  Please don't spend a lot of time accusing each other of being the leak.  You should know that your forced signing of the Confidentiality Agreement, by ALL volunteer committee members, doesn't seem to be working.  It shouldn't be working because you are using it "out of the context of the document itself."  People havE been blind dropping me information for almost three years now.  I have no idea who dropped it and quite frankly, thank you to whoever did. 

ATTENTION NOW, MULTIPLE LOT OWNERS.  HERE IS THE BY-LAW CHANGE RECOMMENDED BY A CONCERNED CITIZEN.  I WILL NOT PUBLISH THE PERSONS NAME.    If you don't own multiple lots, BUT understand business, investment, etc., you ought to be nervous because your vote could be next!



First, this is just dumb!  Actually, I have to reconsider. This is calculating, with intention to harm those individuals who have invested in Wedgefield, to a larger degree than most.  When you invest in a corporation or company, you get as many votes as you have stock.  We now want to penalize people who invested in our community, and remove their proportional voting rights.  UPDATE:  I forgot TO tackle the logic of this. The Concerned Citizen writes:"Even in National Elections, no matter how wealthy you are or how much property you own, you are only entitled to one vote."  THERE ISN'T ANY LOGIC TO THAT RATIONALE!  In National Elections, you don't have to own any property, can own property in another country, or live on the STREET and vote.  This is a home owners association, a HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, entirely different, unless you are going to let all of GEORGETOWN VOTE TOO!  That will be the next amendment from this group

Remember Thomas wanted to stop Wijhtoff's ability to vote his 30 + properties, and failed.  Read previous articles.  What is frightening, is in an effort to get him (still stupid), they will also take any other multiple property owner down to diminish their ability to vote, in the best interests of their property holdings.  PS:  This is my story.  Mr. Wijthoff was not asked to comment.

There are Concerned Citizens who own multiple properties.  Since, they are usually joined at the hip in these ridiculous moves, it appears they will give up their votes, for the cause.  What is the cause?  They can't win fair and square.  The voting margins have been within 1 - 15 votes, in most cases over the last few years.  Last year, their candidates lost!!!!  While I don't believe Wijthoff told anyone how he voted.  THEY FEEL A NEED TO REMOVE HIM. 


WHAT IS NEXT?   All By-Law change submissions are to go to the Legal Committee.  In past years, they were sent to the attorney for opinion.  Will the Legal Committee and the attorney do the right thing?  Please, I don't want to be sued, but Garrison (current or former, Concerned Citizen???) is the Legal Chair.  Who is on the committee?  Bob Nichols.  He and Garrison were two of the authors of the Concerned Citizen letter to every resident, advising them to put the $175.00 in escrow at Anderson Bank.  What are the chances?

MULTIPLE LOT OWNERS BETTER MEET AND MAKE A VOTING PLAN.  IF THIS GOES UP FOR A VOTE THIS YEAR, YOU STILL HAVE ALL OF YOUR VOTING RIGHTS.  Don't trust your Board to do the right thing.  Eight of the nine, raise their hands and vote, without applying the governing documents, Attorney of Record opinions, sound business judgement, or any measurable judgement at all (Approve minutes that don't agree with the motions on the official recording, closed meetings - later called workshops, forced silence of committee members, etc.)

IF YOU AREN'T A MULTIPLE LOT OWNER AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THESE GUYS ARE UP TO, YOU NEED TO PREPARE TO FIGHT WITH YOUR VOTE.

A FINAL THOUGHT FOR MULTIPLE LOT OWNERS:   If this thing, that's what it is, a dumb thing, passes through the Legal Committee, and the Attorney of Record, do something similar to what Legal Chair, Garrison recommended to ALL PROPERTY OWNERS.  Hit the Board in the WALLET.   IF THIS BECOMES A BY-LAW, read what it says.  If you are only allowed one vote, pay your assessment ON ONE LOT, NONE OF THE REST, and use YOUR ONE VOTE.  In the real world, the business world, and every other part of it, YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.  Worried about the rest of your properties?  Don't be.  This Board is repairing the bulk heads of canal lot owners who haven't paid their $5,000 individual assessment, AT OUR EXPENSE.  They are so far behind in collections that you'll be old and don't care anymore when they get to you!

Should I be afraid of making this recommendation?  No, I'm not!  Look what Garrison and Bob Nichols recommended, and President Walton made one the Legal Chair, and your Board put the other one on the Legal Committee.  PRESIDENT WALTON, this should put me at the top of your list for a call to sit on the Legal Committee.  Oh, my hopes are dashed, I just remembered, I WON'T SIGN YOUR, MISGUIDED, Confidentiality Statement!


RESIDENTS, YOU NEED TO REMEMBER WHO WE ARE DEALING WITH.

THE JULY BOARD MEETING - PART FOUR, THE LEGAL REPORT

I've transcribed the Legal Report from a tape of the meeting presented at the Wedgefield Times.  As always, I've tried to the best of my ability.  I encourage you to go to the tape, The Legal Report, which is about 17 minutes into the tape.  Thank you Wedgefield Times for your "time" notations.
I'll transcribe Garrison's report.  Listen to the report and try and see whether you gained any more answers regarding the canals, future options, and the attorney opinion  on an item that couldn't be discussed, but you paid for.

TRANSCRIPTION:   "A meeting was held between Legal and Adam Anderson's  Water Amenities subcommittee July 16th, last night.  The options discussed previously regarding possible future ways to fund canal maintenance."

Did you get what you paid for?  I didn't.  Approximately three months ago, Garrison wouldn't tell us what the question or situation was that he was requesting approval for to take to the attorney.  RUMOR  is that the opinion has been in for some time.  Now he gives a vague report like the one transcribed above, and you still don't know anything, except that they met.  Didn't he like the opinion?  When does he think it would be good to tell you what the whole option is about?  What about Anderson, sub committee chair?  I won't even ask about McBride, because Anderson and Garrison didn't find it necessary  to invite the CHAIR OF WATER AMENITIES TO THE LAST SUB COMMITTEE MEETING WITH LEGAL. 

Residents, this silence, "I'll tell you when and if I want to" attitude, is enabled by your Board's misuse of the Confidentiality Agreement, and furthered by residents who just sit by and let it happen.  Quite frankly, I'm surprised.  After two lawsuits, a recall, a resident being assaulted in the WPA building, etc., all starting with the last canal dredging, you will sit back and trust Garrison to lead the way, but not inform you as to what "the way is"????. 

I've printed an article on the "option".  You'll have to go back and read it.  Quite frankly, rather than do that, why aren't you attending meetings, writing for answers, and demanding that your Board stop the secret governance.

P.S.  I categorize this report, as I did a portion of the Secretary's report - duck, duck, goose.  It is contained in the following article.

JULY BOARD MEETING, PART THREE - YOUR BOARD PLAYS DUCK, DUCK, - GOOSE

Remember the game Duck, Duck, Goose?  You'd form a circle, someone would circle the group singing duck, duck, and finally tap someone and say "goose" and you were it - the goose.  My maternal grandparents were farmers.  Grandma had geese.  She would mutter about the destruction they would cause and always - how dumb they were.  As residents, we may have been tapped as the "goose".  Frankly, I never quite saw the point in the game and don't believe I played it beyond age 4 or 5.  I won't be participating now.

Here is a transcription of a portion of the Board tape.  Go to the Wedgefield Times and listen for yourself.  As always, I've done the best I can with the transcription.  The speaker is Secretary DeMarchi.  A small note:  You'll find that DeMarchi and Garrison are often the speakers.  They take a lot of "tape" time.  There is no vendetta.  I can only transcribe the words of those who speak.  The topic he addresses, is another closed meeting of the Board.

Secretary DeMarchi, "Regarding the special meeting on July 11, 2012 to discuss liens, foreclosures, etc.  Called to order by Jacky Walton at 7:00 PM.  Jacky Walton, Bob Garrison, Janine Cline, Adam Anderson, John McBride, John Walton, Barrier, and DeMarchi were present.  Motion made by John McBride to adjourn, seconded by Bob Garrison, motion passed & the meeting was adjourned. The Board members wishing to stay after adjournment discussed informally the business of the association, which would be brought before the Board at the July 17, 2012 meting. "

The meeting had been called by DeMarchi, titled as a "special meeting", announced on the WPA website, and posted at the front gate, as "closed".  Since then, RUMOR is that DeMarchi, called the after meeting (after adjournment), a workshop.  RUMOR is that he used that term in defense of having called the closed meeting, when others told him that it wasn't legal.  Residents, this is where we get duck, duck, whose the low mentality goose who buys any of this, goose droppings governance?  

These articles get to long when I have to keep dragging in history.  Briefly,  there is nothing in the By-Laws that allows DeMarchi to call his "special meeting"?  Two -  DeMarchi, McMillin, McBride, and Cline signed platforms during the 2011 election period, stating there would be no closed meeting.  The 2010 - 2011 Board Attorney of record said there shouldn't be closed meetings.  Additionally, President Walton had no problem with the former Wedgefield Civic Group jumping all over the 2011 Board, when they called closed meetings to remove him as President.  President Walton knows the truth about these meetings.  You should have five people on your Board saying, "no way".  The only one of the five who appears to fight to keep the promise, follow the attorney's advice, and the governing documents, is McBride.  Otherwise residents, five is a majority and it wouldn't be happening.

The real "goose" would be those of us who fail to recognize that we are being played, as though we have such low mentality that we don't know any better, and have no functioning memory, or ability to read our governing documents.  Want to add insult to injury?  Call a closed Board Meeting, a workshop (I believe the rumor is true.).

BACK TO BUSINESS - THE JULY BOARD MEETING, PART TWO, ANOTHER APOLOGY IN THE SECRETARY'S REPORT

First, it has been busy at the Wedgefield Examiner.  I continue to review and transcribe the tape of the July WPA Board Meeting.  The Secretary's Report contained three apologies.  I'll transcribe the section regarding the Confidentiality Agreement, provide information from a recent office visit, and the Attorney of Record's opinion on its use. 

The transcription follows.  I 've transcribed  it to the best of my ability.  My advice - go to The Wedgefield Times, and listen to the Secretary's Report, yourself.

"Last item, an apology to the residents regarding the Confidentiality Statement.  I made an error.  I got confused in reading through documents between the Conflict of Interest and the Confidentiality Statement, but this Confidentiality Statement was originally submitted to this Board several years ago.  It was resubmitted before I was ever on this Board, in September of last year.  At that time it was put on a document here - letterhead, but it was never voted on and incorporated.  That Confidentiality Statement was not Incorporated until January for first reading.  ........(can't quite understand) in February of this year.  (I assume voted on.)  It was my error in responding that that document had existed prior, in the manual.  It's resurfaced in the manual, but is not a specific document.  It has been subsequently approved by the Board.  So I apologize for the error of my ways."

I wrote the Board  over two months ago and asked to see the historic document and the folder, it was found in, prior to DeMarchi's apology.  As you know they didn't respond.  I wrote them and set my own appointment.  One, I wasn't provided the file it was "FOUND IN".  Two, I was presented a copy of the Confidentiality Statement printed on WPA letterhead, with a paper attachment with two dates:  2009 and 2011.  I was told that the Confidentiality Agreement was presented to the 2009 Board.  In 2011 it was placed on letterhead.

I was a member of the 2009 Board and served as Secretary and Community Liaison.   Admittedly, I haven't asked to see the 2009 correspondence file.  I would have handled anything that came into the office during January through October of 2009.  Without accusation, my recall is that it either was attached to a Compliance Committee Report, or possibly came in as a piece of correspondence, maybe  from Mr. DeMarchi.  It was during that time that he submitted his percentage allocations for reserves.  I have no idea whether he used those percentages for the plan he submitted for Board approval this year, but they used his formula.  He was also a member of the Compliance Committee, that issued the report.  

I'll speak for myself, but the Compliance Committee Report was a disappointment to me as a member of the 2009 Board.  The committee found irregularities, but basically did not want to take action.  Really, they had gone through files that had provided information that the 2008 Board had built the office, removed monies from reserves, without a vote, at the Board table.  So if this document was part of that report , it was ignored.  The 2009 Board took no action on confidentiality.   Check the 2009 Board Minutes. 

I have reviewed the 2011 Board Minutes and found that no action was taken on the Confidentiality Agreement.  When & why then, was it placed on letterhead?

Additionally, when your 2012 Board prepared to vote on the Policy Manual, they were told there was little or no changes, rather an assembly of Policy Manual documents, chronicled, and substantiated through review of minutes, etc.

My point is, the under pinning of the existence, the relevance, the necessity of this document, as it related to approval, were either lies, wishful relevance toward a plan to silence, or just a poor unintentional tool  added to our governing document foundation, to silence, anyone outside of the Board agenda.

The misuse, and abuse of this ill begotten document, is compounded by two relevant points.    First, who has broken the pledge of silence regarding the intent of the document to protect individual resident financial information?  Several of your Board Members have broken it when reporting from their Board chairs, or in the Wragg.  What has happened to them?  NOTHING!  THEY WON'T TALK ABOUT IT -  ANOTHER OF MY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS.

Second,  it is compounded by more unsubstantiated, untrue, information.  Legal Chair Garrison, when asked about legal ramifications to residents who signed it, and possible lawsuits, sought a legal opinion that said volunteer committee members were covered by the Board insurance.  I reviewed the policy during my visit to the office.  I'm not an expert.  I did not find it.  What really continues to bother me is that another resident, during their office visit ,was told weeks and weeks ago by President Walton, that he was calling the insurance company himself.  He did not reveal the answer to the resident, nor did he report on it during the July Board Meeting.  Did the Board tell him, "it was confidential"?

Additionally, I want you to remember that when your Board sat at second reading to approve corrections to the policy manual, they had a list of changes to refer to, went to the pages in the manual and found that they had been corrected and added, before a vote.  YOUR BOARD SHOULD WALK THE CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT BACK TO THE BOARD TABLE AND VOTE TO REMOVE IT, AND CLEAN UP THIS MISGUIDED, MISUSE OF A DOCUMENT THAT HAS MORE LEAKS, THAN ANY WHITE HOUSE, ESPECIALLY SINCE MANY OF THEM HAVE FAILED TO USE IT ACCORDING TO THE INTENT OF THE DOCUMENT.

Think about it.  In the past, Board and committee members who dealt with individual resident financial information were advised not to reveal it.  Residents who served on the Election Committee were advised that they should not reveal individual resident voting.  The ballot count was to be announced during the Annual Meeting, from the Board table.   Secure credible volunteers, who perform their jobs with integrity.  Don't throw a document at them that lacks integrity and reeks of poor structure and misuse.

Read the attached attorney opinion.  Anyone knows your Board can and should set policy.  We should expect that they will vote with complete knowledge and integrity.  It doesn't appear that that was the case with the Confidentiality Agreement.  Was the attorney informed that the Board was going to use it for silencing committee members about more than individual financial information?  WHY IS THIS OPINION NOTED, "VIA HAND DELIVERY ONLY"?

HERE IS THE LEGAL OPINION:





WHAT DO YOU THINK?  SEND YOUR THOUGHTS TO wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com   Be sure and note whether you want your name published with it.

BOARD SECRETARY ADDS INSULT TO INJURY

PLEASE NOTE: THE TITLE TO THIS ARTICLE AND THE CONTENT, ARE MY WORDS FOR WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE COMMUNITY.


If you follow the blog, you know the history of what our Board Secretary has done as a result of a letter sent to the Board by Thomas.  It would almost appear as though another sink hole is developing in our community. It is being engineered by our Board Secretary. 

Below, I have provided a copy of a letter that Taco Wijthoff has sent to the Board.  Will he get answers?  I don't know.  Read through the letter, the Board Secretary has insulted Wijthoff again. If I were Wijthoff I would be insulted.  He speaks for himself.    Why would our Board Secretary be harassing other residents, accusing them of writing Wijthoff's letter, as though he isn't capable of communicating his own concerns in writing?  Is the rest of the Board aware of these things?  Sadly, based on my own experience, I believe they are.

HERE IS A COPY OF WIJTHOFF'S LETTER:

KEEP READING

New articles have been added.  I've updated, "Questions to the Board Unanswered By The Board, So I'll Answer", at this website.  I'll update Mr. La France on the other piece of correspondence that hasn't been answered in 10 weeks.  Please keep reading.  Update yourself by attending Board Meetings, getting answers for yourself, etc.  We'll all be voting soon.

A RESPONSE TO MY CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD - NOT REALLY!

If you follow the blog, you know that I have been waiting for responses to my questions for over 10 weeks.  The Board hasn't answered on critical issues.  The management company hasn't answered.  They both have a new tactic. The management company doesn't recall which of my questions haven't been answered.  The Board doesn't recall either.  Secretary DeMarchi states he thought I answered most of my own questions.  What kind of communication file exists at the offices of both of these entities?  I believe the files are probably fine.  Neither knows how to speak to the fact that they appear to have intentionally ignored answering my questions, and others, while leaping to respond to some. 

FROM MR. LA FRANCE, MANAGEMENT COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE:

Dear Mrs. Claveloux
>
> If you have not already been informed, the BOD has received your by-law
> amendment change recommendations and are currently in the process of
> submitting them to legal for review.
>
> On another note the Board has agreed to set some time aside at the next
> board meeting to discuss the issue you have with the confidentiality
> agreement. 
>
> It is my understanding that over the last couple of weeks you were provided
> some time to meet at the office and review documents and correspondence. If
> at this time there are still questions that you have on any of the topics
> that you have brought to the boards attention please submit them through me
> and I will get any answers that you may still have on certain topics.
>
> Over the last two months there have been a great deal of requests and
> questions sent to both the board and myself. As a result certain emails,
> questions, or requests may have been over looked.  As we continue to go
> forward and I become more familiar with this process, response time will
> improve. My goal throughout all of this is  to work with both the board and
> the community members as best I can.  Have a good day. 
>
> 
>
> 
>
> Thanks,
>
> 
>
> Edmund LaFrance
>
> Property Manager
>
> William Douglas Management

I'M NOT BUYING IT.  MY RESPONSE:
Thank you for your response.  I am surprised that you and the Board are unaware
of the questions that remain unanswered.  I have sent two pieces of
correspondence, over eight weeks ago.  My questions would be easy enough to
review and note those that have been answered. I believe it is about zero.  They
have been on file at two locations (yours and the WPA Office) for over eight
weeks. As to the Confidentiality issue, I am not aware of any discussion by the
Board scheduled for the August Meeting.  I have requested the opportunity to
speak at the August Meeting and been advised that I will be able to speak in one
of the two resident slots, provided by our By-Laws.  While I don't understand
the confusion of what has been answered, I will resend my original emails
Thursday AM and note whether I have received any response.  Secretary DeMarchi
stated that it was his understanding that I had answered many of my own
questions.  He's correct in this respect, I searched By-Laws, Minutes, Policy,
etc., wrote my answers, published them to the Board and The Wedgefield Examiner. 
To date, no one has told me whether my answers stand, or not. 

Residents go back and follow the correspondence debacle on this blog.  It APPEARS to me that your Board MAY have been dictating who gets answered and who gets ignored.  If that is the case, then your Board better tell you what POLICY FORMULA they have reviewed, voted on, and set into policy. We should all know WHO DECIDES. It is almost election time and three seats are vacant.  We don't know who is a candidate, or not, but you may have to consider whether you'll vote for some of these Board Members again.