Wednesday, August 15, 2012
REVIEW OF CORRESPONDENCE FILE INDICATES MORE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
My visit to the WPA office to review the correspondence file was unsettling at best. Kathy, our staff secretary, is always pleasant, and provides what she has been allowed, without any leaks regarding the Board. So, Board you can be reassured that she is performing as she should. Why the clarification? The Board, so over burdened with their secrets, often look amongst each other for a scape goat to blame, if information you and I should have, is leaked. No one is immune to being accused of letting out their secrets.
I never go to the office unannounced. In the past, when I wanted to review a file, I wrote and asked when it would be convenient. As you know, the Board doesn't answer me. In fact, Secretary DeMarchi, then put in writing to ANOTHER resident (break of confidentiality?), just how demanding I am. So now, I just write and tell them when I'll be there. Here is the email announcing my visit on August 14th:
_______________________________________________________________________________
Board,
This morning I received a By-Law amendment in a white envelope, left over night.
Maybe it was the golf cart circling our canal last night at 10:00PM, with no
lights! Whoever it was, or whenever it was left for me, I am grateful. I've
published it on the Wedgefield Examiner.
I will come to the office to review the Correspondence file on Tuesday, August
14th, at 11:00AM. Since anything that comes to the office is CORRESPONDENCE,
I'm sure I'll find my By-Law in the file, along with the one from the "other
XXXX". Additionally, I hope to see Mr. LaFrance's answers to my long over due
for a response, questions. Proper purpose: I don't believe you are keeping the
file up to date.
WHY IS SECRETARY DEMARCHI TELLING PEOPLE I GET ANSWERED IMMEDIATELY? IS THERE NO CONFIDENTIALITY IN THAT OFFICE? THIS ISN'T THE DEAD LETTER OFFICE, I DON'T HAVE ANSWERS.
_________________________________________________________________________________
As I greeted Kathy and she handed me the Correspondence file, she said she had been told to tell me the following, "that in regard to the amendments to the by-laws that they have to go to legal first." In most offices anything that comes in, in written form, is correspondence. A copy should have been date stamped, with a time of day notation, and placed in the file. We all had to follow rules, whether it was on your candidate for board submission, or your by-law change. Most notably, you were required to submit your information at a certain date and time. Forget any office, this is Wedgefield's office, home of secrets, underground games between resident and Board factions, and where trust has long since evaporated. In the least, wouldn't you have thought that the Board would have covered themselves by putting the information in the file? "Has to go to Legal", has become nothing but one of Wedgefield's dark holes, a bottom less pit! The amendments and the candidate submissions were not in the file.
Mr. LaFrance's promised responses to my questions were not in the file. LaFrance's answers (not) to Jude Davis, were not in the file. Take time to read, "After Months, The Promise of an Answer - No Answer. This is his response to Davis, provided to the blog, by Davis. I went back to her letter to the Board. My article is correct, she received no real answers, and some questions were ignored.
HERE THEY ARE from her June 20th letter: 1) According to the financial report the WPA sent the management company $53,000 in May. Since this amount is $20,000 more than the number tossed around, why? Mr. LaFrance should have jumped on that question and had the answer in minutes.
2) I am extremely uncomfortable with Mr. Moody's interpretation of the insurance company's extension of indemnification to volunteers. Could you have the insurance company confirm this indemnification in writing? Isn't two months long enough to wait for something that could have been secured easily? Instead, read the article and review the run around she gets. Additionally, she was in the office weeks ago when President Walton said he was calling the insurance company for the answer. To date, if he has it, he isn't sharing it. Why?
3) Is it legal for the WPA to give away association property? Doesn't this property belong to all members? La France didn't touch that. No answer.
Residents, this is about more than having your letters to the Board answered. It is about the agenda of your Board. It is about refusal to recognize that your Board is selecting who is important enough to answer, when we all pay the same assessment, per lot. We are all investors in our community and should be treated equally. DeMarchi has made enough rules and procedures regarding correspondence to compete with the federal tax code. Davis must be listed as a non resident. Read, "Another Concerned Citizen Receives Immediate Attention From Secretary DeMarchi."
NOTE TO THE BOARD: I'd start working on getting all correspondence into the correspondence file. What do I mean? For instance, Secretary De Marchi, stated that there had been a request for rumble strips on the state road leading to the association, at the July Board Meeting. Since all requests are to be in writing, one would assume the request would be in the file. I've checked twice now, and there isn't one. Rumor is that it is DeMarchi who wants the rumble strips. If true, in the least he should have written his own request and sent it to the office to be placed in the file. He's a resident. Even, if it was in the file, why is our Board jumping through hoops, at one request. Sometimes, the answer to a resident is "no". I know that, because when you don't answer me, it is the same as 'no".
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
I never go to the office unannounced. In the past, when I wanted to review a file, I wrote and asked when it would be convenient. As you know, the Board doesn't answer me. In fact, Secretary DeMarchi, then put in writing to ANOTHER resident (break of confidentiality?), just how demanding I am. So now, I just write and tell them when I'll be there. Here is the email announcing my visit on August 14th:
_______________________________________________________________________________
Board,
This morning I received a By-Law amendment in a white envelope, left over night.
Maybe it was the golf cart circling our canal last night at 10:00PM, with no
lights! Whoever it was, or whenever it was left for me, I am grateful. I've
published it on the Wedgefield Examiner.
I will come to the office to review the Correspondence file on Tuesday, August
14th, at 11:00AM. Since anything that comes to the office is CORRESPONDENCE,
I'm sure I'll find my By-Law in the file, along with the one from the "other
XXXX". Additionally, I hope to see Mr. LaFrance's answers to my long over due
for a response, questions. Proper purpose: I don't believe you are keeping the
file up to date.
WHY IS SECRETARY DEMARCHI TELLING PEOPLE I GET ANSWERED IMMEDIATELY? IS THERE NO CONFIDENTIALITY IN THAT OFFICE? THIS ISN'T THE DEAD LETTER OFFICE, I DON'T HAVE ANSWERS.
_________________________________________________________________________________
As I greeted Kathy and she handed me the Correspondence file, she said she had been told to tell me the following, "that in regard to the amendments to the by-laws that they have to go to legal first." In most offices anything that comes in, in written form, is correspondence. A copy should have been date stamped, with a time of day notation, and placed in the file. We all had to follow rules, whether it was on your candidate for board submission, or your by-law change. Most notably, you were required to submit your information at a certain date and time. Forget any office, this is Wedgefield's office, home of secrets, underground games between resident and Board factions, and where trust has long since evaporated. In the least, wouldn't you have thought that the Board would have covered themselves by putting the information in the file? "Has to go to Legal", has become nothing but one of Wedgefield's dark holes, a bottom less pit! The amendments and the candidate submissions were not in the file.
Mr. LaFrance's promised responses to my questions were not in the file. LaFrance's answers (not) to Jude Davis, were not in the file. Take time to read, "After Months, The Promise of an Answer - No Answer. This is his response to Davis, provided to the blog, by Davis. I went back to her letter to the Board. My article is correct, she received no real answers, and some questions were ignored.
HERE THEY ARE from her June 20th letter: 1) According to the financial report the WPA sent the management company $53,000 in May. Since this amount is $20,000 more than the number tossed around, why? Mr. LaFrance should have jumped on that question and had the answer in minutes.
2) I am extremely uncomfortable with Mr. Moody's interpretation of the insurance company's extension of indemnification to volunteers. Could you have the insurance company confirm this indemnification in writing? Isn't two months long enough to wait for something that could have been secured easily? Instead, read the article and review the run around she gets. Additionally, she was in the office weeks ago when President Walton said he was calling the insurance company for the answer. To date, if he has it, he isn't sharing it. Why?
3) Is it legal for the WPA to give away association property? Doesn't this property belong to all members? La France didn't touch that. No answer.
Residents, this is about more than having your letters to the Board answered. It is about the agenda of your Board. It is about refusal to recognize that your Board is selecting who is important enough to answer, when we all pay the same assessment, per lot. We are all investors in our community and should be treated equally. DeMarchi has made enough rules and procedures regarding correspondence to compete with the federal tax code. Davis must be listed as a non resident. Read, "Another Concerned Citizen Receives Immediate Attention From Secretary DeMarchi."
NOTE TO THE BOARD: I'd start working on getting all correspondence into the correspondence file. What do I mean? For instance, Secretary De Marchi, stated that there had been a request for rumble strips on the state road leading to the association, at the July Board Meeting. Since all requests are to be in writing, one would assume the request would be in the file. I've checked twice now, and there isn't one. Rumor is that it is DeMarchi who wants the rumble strips. If true, in the least he should have written his own request and sent it to the office to be placed in the file. He's a resident. Even, if it was in the file, why is our Board jumping through hoops, at one request. Sometimes, the answer to a resident is "no". I know that, because when you don't answer me, it is the same as 'no".
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
CLARIFICATION OF THE CANAL SUB COMMITTEE OPTION IS PUT IN WRITING
On August 14th I reviewed the Correspondence File at the WPA office. I'm not provided with copies, so I hand wrote the following which was written by Canal Sub Committee Chair, Adam Anderson. If there are typos, they are mine and not Anderson's. THE POSITION STATEMENT FOLLOWS AND WAS NOTED "FOR THE CANAL SUB COMMITTEE AND THE WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE":
"The canal dredging issue at Wedgefield has been the single most divisive and damaging problem our neighborhood has ever faced. While the mood and overall attitudes in the plantation has improved since its peak of a few year ago, a relaxed approach will certainly bring us back full circle if we don't address this issue now and bring the canal dredging problem to some sort of resolution. The water amenities committee started a sub committee back in January to look at any and all possibilities and scenarios.
The canal sub committee has come up with what we believe is the ultimate way to resolve this issue. Some of these are not new ideas as they have been talked about before. Several things have to happen in order for this to work and the cooperation of everyone will be needed. Here is our plan.
1) The canal lots need to form their own regime. It's only purpose would be canal maintenance. The canal lots would still belong to the WPA and everything else would be as it is now. The new regime would have its own by-laws and board, much like the condo regimes within Wedgefield.
2) Through a new by-law that would need to be approved at an annual meeting by 2/3 of the membership, the WPA would commit a set amount of money on a percentage of its yearly budget to the new regime. The details of this would need to be worked on a little more but the number we are currently looking at is in the $40-$50 per lot range.
3)The WPA would then be relieved of any financial obligation to the canal lot owners. It would then be up to the canal regime to find the remaining amount in whatever manner they decide.
This would allow the canal lot owners to handle their own affairs regarding canal maintenance and would alleviate the WPA from having to deal with the controversial aspects of this issue. It would end the pitting of neighbor against neighbor that has hurt the property values and reputation of Wedgefield in the public eye. The cost of setting this up would be minimal. The biggest hurdle will be getting everyone on board. All of the canal lots and 2/3 of the participating voters at an annual election will need to support this in order for it to work. We believe there is no better way to resolve this. It puts the majority of the expense on the canal lots where it should be, and still allows for a small contribution from the entire community to cover the drainage and debris that the entire plantation contributes to the filling in of the canals. It is fair to everyone."
As stated in a previous article, I don't agree with this and we will never agree to sign on to a sub assosciation, as a canal lot owner. After eight years of living with irratic WPA boards, we are not going to put another entity in line, to harm our comfortable life. There are a number of concrete reasons not to support this.
1) My own investigation says it cannot be done legally - form a sub association after the fact.
2) I don't like the way the option was put together. It started with secrecy, avoiding the Chair of the larger committee - John Mc Bride, Chair of Water Amenities.
3) This was not the proposal the Canal sub committee took to discuss with Garrison's Legal Committee. This was Garrison's proposal.
4) I don't agree with the statements contained in this option. The WPA owns the spoil site. What happens with maintenance of it? Where would the canal sub association put the debris if they did dredge? The WPA owns over 45% of the frontage on the canals. The WPA adds debris everyday running their inefficient drainage into our canals.
5) The by-law addition to be voted on doesn't have a life time guarantee. Remember, we now have a by-law submission that if approved, would mandate one vote only, no matter how many lots you pay assessments on.
6) We already have a legal means - Individual Assessment, to assess canal lot owners and any other group and their circumstance, without playing Garrison's game. There is a bridge in Brooklyn attached to buying this option.
There are many more. Perhaps you will write and add to the list.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
"The canal dredging issue at Wedgefield has been the single most divisive and damaging problem our neighborhood has ever faced. While the mood and overall attitudes in the plantation has improved since its peak of a few year ago, a relaxed approach will certainly bring us back full circle if we don't address this issue now and bring the canal dredging problem to some sort of resolution. The water amenities committee started a sub committee back in January to look at any and all possibilities and scenarios.
The canal sub committee has come up with what we believe is the ultimate way to resolve this issue. Some of these are not new ideas as they have been talked about before. Several things have to happen in order for this to work and the cooperation of everyone will be needed. Here is our plan.
1) The canal lots need to form their own regime. It's only purpose would be canal maintenance. The canal lots would still belong to the WPA and everything else would be as it is now. The new regime would have its own by-laws and board, much like the condo regimes within Wedgefield.
2) Through a new by-law that would need to be approved at an annual meeting by 2/3 of the membership, the WPA would commit a set amount of money on a percentage of its yearly budget to the new regime. The details of this would need to be worked on a little more but the number we are currently looking at is in the $40-$50 per lot range.
3)The WPA would then be relieved of any financial obligation to the canal lot owners. It would then be up to the canal regime to find the remaining amount in whatever manner they decide.
This would allow the canal lot owners to handle their own affairs regarding canal maintenance and would alleviate the WPA from having to deal with the controversial aspects of this issue. It would end the pitting of neighbor against neighbor that has hurt the property values and reputation of Wedgefield in the public eye. The cost of setting this up would be minimal. The biggest hurdle will be getting everyone on board. All of the canal lots and 2/3 of the participating voters at an annual election will need to support this in order for it to work. We believe there is no better way to resolve this. It puts the majority of the expense on the canal lots where it should be, and still allows for a small contribution from the entire community to cover the drainage and debris that the entire plantation contributes to the filling in of the canals. It is fair to everyone."
As stated in a previous article, I don't agree with this and we will never agree to sign on to a sub assosciation, as a canal lot owner. After eight years of living with irratic WPA boards, we are not going to put another entity in line, to harm our comfortable life. There are a number of concrete reasons not to support this.
1) My own investigation says it cannot be done legally - form a sub association after the fact.
2) I don't like the way the option was put together. It started with secrecy, avoiding the Chair of the larger committee - John Mc Bride, Chair of Water Amenities.
3) This was not the proposal the Canal sub committee took to discuss with Garrison's Legal Committee. This was Garrison's proposal.
4) I don't agree with the statements contained in this option. The WPA owns the spoil site. What happens with maintenance of it? Where would the canal sub association put the debris if they did dredge? The WPA owns over 45% of the frontage on the canals. The WPA adds debris everyday running their inefficient drainage into our canals.
5) The by-law addition to be voted on doesn't have a life time guarantee. Remember, we now have a by-law submission that if approved, would mandate one vote only, no matter how many lots you pay assessments on.
6) We already have a legal means - Individual Assessment, to assess canal lot owners and any other group and their circumstance, without playing Garrison's game. There is a bridge in Brooklyn attached to buying this option.
There are many more. Perhaps you will write and add to the list.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
ANOTHER CONCERNED CITIZEN RECEIVES IMMEDIATE ATTENTION FROM SECRETARY DE MARCHI
Today, August 14th, I went to the office to review the correspondence file. I didn't find everything that should have been in there. I'll report about that later. However, at a time when many have not received answers, once again Secretary DeMarchi jumps when a Concerned Citizen - Zieske writes. She doesn't write the Board, just DeMarchi.
On August 6th, subject: Board Seats, Zieske writes the office with this note, "Kathy, Would you please copy this to Al DeMarchi."
"Al, I believe you have the wrong number of seats posted as open for the next annual meeting. Anyone that was appointed during the year must run for election as well as the three people that have their three year term up. I believe it should be 5 openings. Check it out.
Just to hopefully help."
Zieske then quotes the by-law.
Al DeMarchi leaps into action. He writes Kathy at the office:
"Kathy, I thought we checked this out a long time ago. I had asked about the positions and time remaining. Please GET WITH JACKY WALTON (DeMarchi capitalizes his demand.) and check this out. If there is a question, please call Carol Z. and ask how she came up with this number.
I believe the number 3 is correct.
Al"
You know how I feel about DeMarchi's preference for serving the Concerned Citizens above all his rules and policies. Additionally, I was secretary in 2009 and running for the Board. I handled development of the packet, training of volunteers, etc. but never touched or had contact with a proxy or a ballot. With that said Zieske's cohorts went ballistic before and after the election. To my knowledge DeMarchi is a candidate. Why would Zieske be so anxious to help him, without question to his being a candidate, and Secretary working with the annual meeting? The other side of the double standard is DeMarchi leaps when she beckons!
After I got home, I thought about all of this. I called Jude Davis. She has since sent the following to The Wedgefield Examiner:
On August 6th, subject: Board Seats, Zieske writes the office with this note, "Kathy, Would you please copy this to Al DeMarchi."
"Al, I believe you have the wrong number of seats posted as open for the next annual meeting. Anyone that was appointed during the year must run for election as well as the three people that have their three year term up. I believe it should be 5 openings. Check it out.
Just to hopefully help."
Zieske then quotes the by-law.
Al DeMarchi leaps into action. He writes Kathy at the office:
"Kathy, I thought we checked this out a long time ago. I had asked about the positions and time remaining. Please GET WITH JACKY WALTON (DeMarchi capitalizes his demand.) and check this out. If there is a question, please call Carol Z. and ask how she came up with this number.
I believe the number 3 is correct.
Al"
You know how I feel about DeMarchi's preference for serving the Concerned Citizens above all his rules and policies. Additionally, I was secretary in 2009 and running for the Board. I handled development of the packet, training of volunteers, etc. but never touched or had contact with a proxy or a ballot. With that said Zieske's cohorts went ballistic before and after the election. To my knowledge DeMarchi is a candidate. Why would Zieske be so anxious to help him, without question to his being a candidate, and Secretary working with the annual meeting? The other side of the double standard is DeMarchi leaps when she beckons!
After I got home, I thought about all of this. I called Jude Davis. She has since sent the following to The Wedgefield Examiner:
Madeline,
I received another phone call shortly after you and I spoke concerning the
same thing—how many positions are up for election this year. While I do not
want to impugn anyone’s intelligence, it also doesn’t take a rocket scientist to
figure out that we will have three openings this November.
McBride, McMillin, and Kline were elected in 2011 for three years and
have two more years on their terms.
Garrison, Walton, and Barrier were elected in 2010 for three years and
have one more year.
Al DeMarchi was elected in 2011 for 1 year and his position is
open.
Walton and Anderson were appointed and therefore their positions are
open.
I understand that the individual claiming that we have five openings wrote
directly to the Secretary and received immediate action---again, different
strokes for different folks. Shame on Al for not knowing how many
openings!
Jude
First, thank you to Jude Davis. Second, residents keep following. You are going to be put in a position of considering who you will elect? You might ask yourself, who will represent you, who will even answer you, will they even bother to operate fairly?
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
TWO NEW ARTICLES TODAY, ONE LAST NIGHT, AND MORE TO COME SOON, STAYED TUNED!
Residents, stay tuned. Today, two new articles were posted: "WHAT A DIFFERENCE ONE YEAR CAN MAKE! IT DEPENDS WHO IS SPEAKING AS TO WHETHER YOUR BOARD WILL TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION, OR NOT" and "RESIDENT WRITES THE BOARD AND SAYS, 'MORE TALK AND DELAYS ARE UNACCEPTABLE"
Don't miss out. Watch the blog. I have several articles in process. Read here for information on what the Board won't answer, what they won't tell you, and the fraternity Board.
Don't miss out. Watch the blog. I have several articles in process. Read here for information on what the Board won't answer, what they won't tell you, and the fraternity Board.
RESIDENT WRITES THE BOARD AND SAYS, "MORE TALK AND DELAYS ARE UNACCEPTABLE"
PLEASE NOTE: The following comments, in blue, are not those of the resident, but mine. I'll provide the document, as delivered to The Wedgefield Examiner. I can't help but ask, "Where is Secretary DeMarchi? According to the documents below he promised this resident "action", whether response, etc., in June. I ask, does your name have to be Thomas to get a quick 3 HOUR response time from the Board? Oh, I forgot, DeMarchi has burdened the response system with more layers, after he did death defying leaps for Thomas. Well, the rest of us can just wait our turn, beyond policy, beyond his new rules, and sometimes - NEVER HAVE HOPE OF AN ANSWER. Mr. La France where are you? I've been waiting for months for answers, even after you wrote and told me you were working on it?
Remember, the words in blue are mine.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
HERE ARE THE DOCUMENTS:
Remember, the words in blue are mine.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
HERE ARE THE DOCUMENTS:
WHAT A DIFFERENCE ONE YEAR CAN MAKE! IT DEPENDS WHO IS SPEAKING, AS TO WHETHER YOUR BOARD WILL TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION, OR NOT
This report at first glance, may appear to be about roads, our roads. Some of the content will be about roads. The real issue presented however, is about YOUR BOARD'S total continued disregard for fellow Board Member McBride, and the concrete information he tries to bring to the Board table on a monthly basis. He was disregarded a year ago, as he tried to bring good business sense to the table about roads. The Board and all residents are being bitten in the proverbial butt, for their lack of voting in the best interests of the association, rather than in behalf of their cronies. We are not only back to ROADS, but to some of the same POT HOLES, that were repaired last year. As you read, remember some of the 2011 Board are out of the picture - Thomas, Wilson, Huggins. As you read, remember some of the same players - Garrison, President Walton, Barrier, McMillin - who scoffed, ignored, and voted against sound business advice, are now listening to a new player - Anderson- singing the same song McBride did, and they are humming in agreement with him. This is not against Anderson's efforts to do the job right. It isn't even specifically about McBride. It is about any Board Member who isn't in the club. I have not spoken to McBride about this. He has not been involved.
It is time for you to think about these current players, including Anderson, and their regular disregard and violation of the Code of Ethics. They all signed it. Back to roads to completely make the point.
2012: During the June Board Meeting, Anderson reported he had completed a study of the roads and mapped the areas to be considered for repair, with priority notations. He and Mr. LaFrance were going to work together on securing bids. In July as I listen to the tape Anderson begins to speak of the need to bring in a arborist to look at the large oak root damage to the roads, individuals to look at the other underlying problems beneath the surface of the problem areas in our roads, etc. This is great, the way it should be. Remember, Garrison, Barrier, McMillin, and President Walton appear to think it is great. These same Board Members, who you are suppose to have confidence in, in determining how we will allocate monies, all voted against McBride in 2011. Think I'm mistaken? Not so! Remember we spent $29,000 on roads last year, on a contractor that had no contract, no license, no insurance, and didn't return to finish for months! That was with the first $20,000. There was another $9,000 to be spent. Garrison, Barrier, McMillin, and Walton gave it to the same vendor. McBride argued all the way.
I've taken the following quote from the August 16, 2011 Meeting Minutes. It should be noted that the minutes are noted as "corrected & replaced Road's Report". The quote from the minutes is long. It is important to read through this garbage to get the point. HERE IT IS:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John McBride: What I would like the board to approve, is to approve the roads committee to search for technical support to determine what we actually need to do with these 42 spots that we have out there. Before they get any worse, ok, and procure bids for that at the same time we need to search for what money we might have available to do the job. But there will be a cost with this help that we need. I think we need the help because there are too many different ways to patch something and the best way and there is an affordable way and we need the affordable way.
Bob Garrison: In my view, that’s what we’re paying the guys that’s doing the paving to figure out. To bring in an engineering firm or a manager, whatever you’re suggesting I think is just wasted money. We’re not talking about sending something to Neptune here, we’re talking about paving roads. That’s a fairly straight forward concept I think there’s enough expertise here with people that do this and have done it, Johnny & Jacky, that we don’t have a pretty good idea of what we can spec to without having to spend money to tell us that. That’s just my view.
Jacky Walton: Can I make a comment? This is just my recent past experience, I used a paving company to come out and do some patching for me. This particular company had their own engineer in-house, so when we contacted them they sent him out to observe and to give a quote based on their engineers specs.
Johnny Huggins: So that was included in the quote?
Jacky Walton: Right, that was included in the quote.
Johnny Huggins: We should be able to get that.
Jacky Walton: You may even need to ask that John, If they have an in house engineer that would come out and would spec it. That would save that money in my opinion.
John McBride: Do we know of a paving company that has that around here?
Jacky Walton: I’m pretty sure that Palmetto Paving has their own engineer.
John McBride: Palmetto Paving does?
Jacky Walton: If I’m not mistaken.
John McBride: I can ask.
Johnny Huggins: Why can’t we get the road committee look into the specs?
John McBride: I did, I got a book, I haven’t had Kathy print them out because the book probably 100 pages long. I’m not a road expert, I cannot do this. I can look at what we need to do but I cannot specify what we need to do the right job on these patches, some of these patches wouldn’t have been done with what I know now, would not have been done the way they were done, ok, so I don’t feel like I can rely on a contractor to do what I need an engineer to tell me what’s the best most affordable to make, let’s just say, a cul-de-sac useable to us for a long period of time. Stuff we have going through these cul-de-sacs today they are tearing it up. Just tearing it up, so what do we need to do, how thick does that asphalt need to be, how thick does that base need to be, what kind of base do we need to use its complex, it’s not simple. One of the things we’re seeing where these roads are alligatoring you see a lot cracks and you see a lot of sand on there, that’s the base coming through the cracks. So you’re losing the base. New base has to go in, all that has to come out and it’s because of water. But I can look and see if there’s a company that has that but what do I do if I can’t find one?
Fred Thomas: Talk to George
John McBride: George?
Fred Thomas: George Wilson, he had a bunch of contacts.
Johnny Huggins: He might have something useable.
John McBride: I’ve got every contact in Conway and it’s right on the computer. That’s approved, ok.
Fred Thomas: George has got contacts. And he said most had their own in-house engineer.
Bob Garrison: Let me ask you a question. Are ya’ll prepared at this point to move ahead you already got this other $9,000 approved, right? We’ve got plenty of stuff to do that doesn’t take an engineer or a rocket scientist or anybody else to figure out where some of these holes are. Now what the best way to fill them is to be is open to question, I understand that, are ya’ll prepared to spend that $9,000 now with the guy we got?
John McBride: Well I am willing to spend up to $20,000 with the guy that we have. And that will take care of like entrance here and another pot hole down…..
Bob Garrison: What $20,000?
Johnny Huggins: The remaining of the $20,000. I would like to not postpone it anymore and let him finish this piece, and if we can find more people with better bids then I’ll just tell him thank you and get a job with Earthworks.
John McBride: Let’s spend up to the $20,000 and leave it at that and then…
Johnny Huggins: Then you have another month without any road repair.
John McBride: It’s not going to hurt us? We’ve been months right now. I just don’t want to spend money and not get value for it.
Jacky Walton: Well, here’s one of the problems if we don’t address some of these holes now, if we wait another month, we wait another 2 months instead of spending $1,000 to repair these holes we’ll be spending $10,000 to repair because we didn’t repair them now.
(Board Commotion) Inaudible
Fred Thomas: We start getting into the fall, these things are going to be gigantic.
John McBride: We’ve got enough money, whether 1,000 square feet….1,000 square feet is a lot of holes.
Johnny Huggins: The $9,000 has been approved. Plus pending with you coming in here with a real quote which we don’t really have, I’m not saying you’re not doing a wonderful job but we don’t have it and we’re getting into another month behind is the problem. And I’ve been telling these people every time they walk in here that you got to be here tomorrow.
Fred Thomas: We started this thing in May?
Johnny Huggins: I just want to finish this little chunk of change here, the $9,000 with the guy we got and then we’ll kiss him goodbye.
John McBride: (Inaudible) ….will put $5,000 with that chunk of change to offset the extra pot? Do you want to do that?
Johnny Huggins: Do what?
John McBride: I’m saying, to spend $9,000 it will take $15,000 to do the same amount of work….in other words he’s going charge us too much money, by $5,000. I’m not willing to spend $5,000 to throw away. That’s more than $10.00 a person here. That’s a lot of money Johnny.
Jacky Walton: I agree with what you’re saying, but here’s another problem, do you know asphalt? You don’t have a couple more months and they’ll be shutting the plants down. So now you’ll be waiting until the spring of next year.
John McBride: I think we can take the major holes we have and fix them.
Bob Garrison: How many big holes do we have?
Jacky Walton: Who’s going to check them?
Bob Garrison: Well you know where they are.
Jacky Walton: I make a motion that we use Myrtle Paving to continue with the paving using the remaining $9,000 from the budget.
John McBride: That’s not going to complete the work, though.
Bob Garrison: Well, we know that. You’re never going to complete the road paving work because….
John McBride: I want to take that $9,000 with a new contract, if we put it out for bids and do it in the right way, ok. Use some of that money with an engineering company so we correct these problems the right way.
Bob Garrison: John, you haven’t convinced me yet that you got anybody to come in here and do for $1.25 a square foot.
Johnny Huggins: We got a motion.
Bob Garrison: Second of all if you’re using some of the money for this engineering firm then you don’t have much money in terms now it’s not a $1.25 a square foot anymore. It’s $1.25-1.30 a square foot plus the engineering firm divided by that number of square feet. When we get all done, we probably talking about less than $1.00 a square foot and waiting 3 more months to do it.
Jason Barrier: I second Jacky’s motion.
Fred Thomas: I already seconded it. We got a motion and a second.
Bob Garrison: Alright, any other discussion?
Larry McMillin: For the sake of timing and everything I think this is the right way to go with this. I think if we prioritize the areas that we want done to get the worst ones done first and whenever he runs out of money that’s it. We have a new budget coming up give me some figures you think you need for next year and dollar amount and we will work it in. For expediency and the fact that the school buses are going to start coming in next week we need to get something done. We’ve waited all summer.
Bob Garrison: Alright, any other discussion?
Johnny Huggins: Ok, he just resigned. From Roads.
John McBride: Yep, I’m done. If I don’t get the help I need to do….
Bob Garrison: If you don’t get your way….. (Commotion)
Johnny Huggins: That’s ok, let’s not argue.
Bob Garrison: All those in favor of the motion presented by Jacky , signify by saying aye.
Motion passes 7 to 1.
A motion was made and seconded to release the remaining $9,000 to Myrtle Paving, Danny Lee to repair the remaining potholes. Motion was passed with 7 ayes and 1 no.
John McBride then resigned from the roads committee.
________________________________________________________________________________
What changed since last year? What caused Garrison, Barrier, McMillin, and President Walton to change their minds? Nothing except, I believe if you are John McBride, you aren't part of the fraternity of brothers, and you don't have a chance to be heard. Why? I think the rest are making back room deals. I'm not talking about money. I talking about, "you wash my arrogant heavy handed controlling BACK and I'll wash yours." That's why we have Garrison as Legal Chair, Walton, as President, and McBride left out of important meetings.
It is time to think about all of this. Anderson, Walton (John), and DeMarchi are running for Board, along with Taco Wijthoff. I'm doing research on their voting records. You'll be the judge as to whether they vote in the best interests of Wedgefield, or in the best interests of the fraternity brotherhood. Wijthoff, gets my vote.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
It is time for you to think about these current players, including Anderson, and their regular disregard and violation of the Code of Ethics. They all signed it. Back to roads to completely make the point.
2012: During the June Board Meeting, Anderson reported he had completed a study of the roads and mapped the areas to be considered for repair, with priority notations. He and Mr. LaFrance were going to work together on securing bids. In July as I listen to the tape Anderson begins to speak of the need to bring in a arborist to look at the large oak root damage to the roads, individuals to look at the other underlying problems beneath the surface of the problem areas in our roads, etc. This is great, the way it should be. Remember, Garrison, Barrier, McMillin, and President Walton appear to think it is great. These same Board Members, who you are suppose to have confidence in, in determining how we will allocate monies, all voted against McBride in 2011. Think I'm mistaken? Not so! Remember we spent $29,000 on roads last year, on a contractor that had no contract, no license, no insurance, and didn't return to finish for months! That was with the first $20,000. There was another $9,000 to be spent. Garrison, Barrier, McMillin, and Walton gave it to the same vendor. McBride argued all the way.
I've taken the following quote from the August 16, 2011 Meeting Minutes. It should be noted that the minutes are noted as "corrected & replaced Road's Report". The quote from the minutes is long. It is important to read through this garbage to get the point. HERE IT IS:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John McBride: What I would like the board to approve, is to approve the roads committee to search for technical support to determine what we actually need to do with these 42 spots that we have out there. Before they get any worse, ok, and procure bids for that at the same time we need to search for what money we might have available to do the job. But there will be a cost with this help that we need. I think we need the help because there are too many different ways to patch something and the best way and there is an affordable way and we need the affordable way.
Bob Garrison: In my view, that’s what we’re paying the guys that’s doing the paving to figure out. To bring in an engineering firm or a manager, whatever you’re suggesting I think is just wasted money. We’re not talking about sending something to Neptune here, we’re talking about paving roads. That’s a fairly straight forward concept I think there’s enough expertise here with people that do this and have done it, Johnny & Jacky, that we don’t have a pretty good idea of what we can spec to without having to spend money to tell us that. That’s just my view.
Jacky Walton: Can I make a comment? This is just my recent past experience, I used a paving company to come out and do some patching for me. This particular company had their own engineer in-house, so when we contacted them they sent him out to observe and to give a quote based on their engineers specs.
Johnny Huggins: So that was included in the quote?
Jacky Walton: Right, that was included in the quote.
Johnny Huggins: We should be able to get that.
Jacky Walton: You may even need to ask that John, If they have an in house engineer that would come out and would spec it. That would save that money in my opinion.
John McBride: Do we know of a paving company that has that around here?
Jacky Walton: I’m pretty sure that Palmetto Paving has their own engineer.
John McBride: Palmetto Paving does?
Jacky Walton: If I’m not mistaken.
John McBride: I can ask.
Johnny Huggins: Why can’t we get the road committee look into the specs?
John McBride: I did, I got a book, I haven’t had Kathy print them out because the book probably 100 pages long. I’m not a road expert, I cannot do this. I can look at what we need to do but I cannot specify what we need to do the right job on these patches, some of these patches wouldn’t have been done with what I know now, would not have been done the way they were done, ok, so I don’t feel like I can rely on a contractor to do what I need an engineer to tell me what’s the best most affordable to make, let’s just say, a cul-de-sac useable to us for a long period of time. Stuff we have going through these cul-de-sacs today they are tearing it up. Just tearing it up, so what do we need to do, how thick does that asphalt need to be, how thick does that base need to be, what kind of base do we need to use its complex, it’s not simple. One of the things we’re seeing where these roads are alligatoring you see a lot cracks and you see a lot of sand on there, that’s the base coming through the cracks. So you’re losing the base. New base has to go in, all that has to come out and it’s because of water. But I can look and see if there’s a company that has that but what do I do if I can’t find one?
Fred Thomas: Talk to George
John McBride: George?
Fred Thomas: George Wilson, he had a bunch of contacts.
Johnny Huggins: He might have something useable.
John McBride: I’ve got every contact in Conway and it’s right on the computer. That’s approved, ok.
Fred Thomas: George has got contacts. And he said most had their own in-house engineer.
Bob Garrison: Let me ask you a question. Are ya’ll prepared at this point to move ahead you already got this other $9,000 approved, right? We’ve got plenty of stuff to do that doesn’t take an engineer or a rocket scientist or anybody else to figure out where some of these holes are. Now what the best way to fill them is to be is open to question, I understand that, are ya’ll prepared to spend that $9,000 now with the guy we got?
John McBride: Well I am willing to spend up to $20,000 with the guy that we have. And that will take care of like entrance here and another pot hole down…..
Bob Garrison: What $20,000?
Johnny Huggins: The remaining of the $20,000. I would like to not postpone it anymore and let him finish this piece, and if we can find more people with better bids then I’ll just tell him thank you and get a job with Earthworks.
John McBride: Let’s spend up to the $20,000 and leave it at that and then…
Johnny Huggins: Then you have another month without any road repair.
John McBride: It’s not going to hurt us? We’ve been months right now. I just don’t want to spend money and not get value for it.
Jacky Walton: Well, here’s one of the problems if we don’t address some of these holes now, if we wait another month, we wait another 2 months instead of spending $1,000 to repair these holes we’ll be spending $10,000 to repair because we didn’t repair them now.
(Board Commotion) Inaudible
Fred Thomas: We start getting into the fall, these things are going to be gigantic.
John McBride: We’ve got enough money, whether 1,000 square feet….1,000 square feet is a lot of holes.
Johnny Huggins: The $9,000 has been approved. Plus pending with you coming in here with a real quote which we don’t really have, I’m not saying you’re not doing a wonderful job but we don’t have it and we’re getting into another month behind is the problem. And I’ve been telling these people every time they walk in here that you got to be here tomorrow.
Fred Thomas: We started this thing in May?
Johnny Huggins: I just want to finish this little chunk of change here, the $9,000 with the guy we got and then we’ll kiss him goodbye.
John McBride: (Inaudible) ….will put $5,000 with that chunk of change to offset the extra pot? Do you want to do that?
Johnny Huggins: Do what?
John McBride: I’m saying, to spend $9,000 it will take $15,000 to do the same amount of work….in other words he’s going charge us too much money, by $5,000. I’m not willing to spend $5,000 to throw away. That’s more than $10.00 a person here. That’s a lot of money Johnny.
Jacky Walton: I agree with what you’re saying, but here’s another problem, do you know asphalt? You don’t have a couple more months and they’ll be shutting the plants down. So now you’ll be waiting until the spring of next year.
John McBride: I think we can take the major holes we have and fix them.
Bob Garrison: How many big holes do we have?
Jacky Walton: Who’s going to check them?
Bob Garrison: Well you know where they are.
Jacky Walton: I make a motion that we use Myrtle Paving to continue with the paving using the remaining $9,000 from the budget.
John McBride: That’s not going to complete the work, though.
Bob Garrison: Well, we know that. You’re never going to complete the road paving work because….
John McBride: I want to take that $9,000 with a new contract, if we put it out for bids and do it in the right way, ok. Use some of that money with an engineering company so we correct these problems the right way.
Bob Garrison: John, you haven’t convinced me yet that you got anybody to come in here and do for $1.25 a square foot.
Johnny Huggins: We got a motion.
Bob Garrison: Second of all if you’re using some of the money for this engineering firm then you don’t have much money in terms now it’s not a $1.25 a square foot anymore. It’s $1.25-1.30 a square foot plus the engineering firm divided by that number of square feet. When we get all done, we probably talking about less than $1.00 a square foot and waiting 3 more months to do it.
Jason Barrier: I second Jacky’s motion.
Fred Thomas: I already seconded it. We got a motion and a second.
Bob Garrison: Alright, any other discussion?
Larry McMillin: For the sake of timing and everything I think this is the right way to go with this. I think if we prioritize the areas that we want done to get the worst ones done first and whenever he runs out of money that’s it. We have a new budget coming up give me some figures you think you need for next year and dollar amount and we will work it in. For expediency and the fact that the school buses are going to start coming in next week we need to get something done. We’ve waited all summer.
Bob Garrison: Alright, any other discussion?
Johnny Huggins: Ok, he just resigned. From Roads.
John McBride: Yep, I’m done. If I don’t get the help I need to do….
Bob Garrison: If you don’t get your way….. (Commotion)
Johnny Huggins: That’s ok, let’s not argue.
Bob Garrison: All those in favor of the motion presented by Jacky , signify by saying aye.
Motion passes 7 to 1.
A motion was made and seconded to release the remaining $9,000 to Myrtle Paving, Danny Lee to repair the remaining potholes. Motion was passed with 7 ayes and 1 no.
John McBride then resigned from the roads committee.
________________________________________________________________________________
What changed since last year? What caused Garrison, Barrier, McMillin, and President Walton to change their minds? Nothing except, I believe if you are John McBride, you aren't part of the fraternity of brothers, and you don't have a chance to be heard. Why? I think the rest are making back room deals. I'm not talking about money. I talking about, "you wash my arrogant heavy handed controlling BACK and I'll wash yours." That's why we have Garrison as Legal Chair, Walton, as President, and McBride left out of important meetings.
It is time to think about all of this. Anderson, Walton (John), and DeMarchi are running for Board, along with Taco Wijthoff. I'm doing research on their voting records. You'll be the judge as to whether they vote in the best interests of Wedgefield, or in the best interests of the fraternity brotherhood. Wijthoff, gets my vote.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)