WELL, WELL, MORE PEOPLE ARE INVESTIGATING COMPLIANCE ISSUES WITH THIS WPA BOARD. READERS ARE GOING BACK IN TIME FOR SOME REASON. READ THE POSTING THAT IS UNDER SCRUTINY BY SOME RESIDENTS, AND JUST WONDER HOW THE BOARD HAS PUSHED SOME TO THE POINT OF PUSHING BACK. THANK YOU TO THE RESEARCHERS WHO ARE LOOKING AT THE FACTS OF COMPLIANCE, LEGAL, AND TWO FACED ADMINISTRATIVE HANDLING BY THIS BOARD.

COULD WE HAVE EQUAL JUSTICE IN THE APPLICATION OF OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS?  HOW CAN WE WHEN THE LEGAL CHAIR SPEAKS ON A SUBJECT HE ADVISED US ON IN THE PAST, AND THEN PUNISHES A RESIDENT FOR APPLYING IT LATER? SHOULD WE TRUST HIS WORD?  WHERE HAS THE LEGAL COMMITTEE BEEN?  WHERE HAS COMPLIANCE BEEN?  WHERE HAS ANY STANDARD OF ANSWERING RESIDENT'S AND RECORDING WHAT THE BOARD'S RESPONSE HAS BEEN?  YOU CAN'T EXPECT EQUAL TREATMENT FROM A BOARD THAT IGNORES THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, AND NO ONE ON THE BOARD CARES. HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF.  IT MAY BE A DIFFERENT ISSUE CANAL LOT OWNERS -
BUT
YOU ARE GETTING THIS KIND OF DOUBLE TALK ON THE SPOIL SITE,
THE DREDGING,
AND 
YOUR BOARD'S DISREGARD FOR THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, AS IT RELATES TO EVERY STEP YOU'VE TAKEN SO FAR.

First a big thank you to the readers who think for themselves, take a look at current problems, and go back and read - for the record.  The research back to the 2016 article reposted below looks at current issues of compliance, legal, property maintenance, and questions where we have truth of fact from this board.  We've lacked truth in open governance, adherence to governing documents, and have failed to vote out those who have perpetuated it.  What is more frightening, we have elected new people who stay quiet, and appear to fall in line with that old board crew.  

What do I mean?  During the December 2017 board meeting, I was pleased to hear that our president had finally split a conflict of function in his continued appointments of Garrison as chair of both legal, and compliance - removing any checks and balances to these two committees, and appointed a newly elected board member to chair of compliance.  Hope was dashed of a fresh, uncontaminated look at compliance, when we get to the January meeting and the new compliance chair nominates Garrison to the compliance committee, along with several of the old guard, Garrison followers - fellow old guard board members, and your board - SURPRISE, SURPRISE, approves the nominations!  You ought to be concerned.

HERE'S THE 2016 ARTICLE:

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BOARD. WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO PROTECT THE VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY, AND THE PROTECTION OF AN HOA? 

The Wedgefield Examiner has a lot going on.  Most would declare that they needed an assistant.  My only assistant is Wonder Dog Brady, and he can't type, and for sure can't compose!  I owe you a article about the "open" Board Meeting.  I've visited the WPA Office, and secured some copies of legal papers.  I'm working on a project, on my own, about the dumping of evergreen trees in the canals, to legally make fish beds.  Yet, I was struck by a letter in the WPA Correspondence file.  It was a subject that I covered earlier, and as the saying goes, "it curled my hair", as I read it.  Earlier, I had reported about the resident who had placed their 2016 assessment in escrow.  This was reported by Legal Chair Garrison, and I took umbrage,  at his response, as he reported from the board table.  Why?  Because your Legal Chair, prior to entering the Board, blessed as Legal Chair by President Walton, had written residents during the canal dredging drama, along with two other "Bobs", and recommended that residents place their canal dredging assessments (legally voted on by a previous board), in an escrow account.  Now, he was reporting that he had told the resident to pay, or be fined!  Yet, your board, had failed to live up to the governing documents, in regard to property maintenance. 

First, attached to the letter, the resident presents what appear to be legal documents in the establishment of a escrow account, and deposit of $500 for the 2016 assessment, with the sole purpose to pay the assessment, after it is proven that your board has met the stipulations of our governing documents.   We start the direct letter language quote shortly after the letter subject introduction.

"at such time that the following occurs:
1) The neglected lot adjacent to me, which I HAVE REPEATEDLY REQUESTED TO BE KEMPT as REQUIRED by the WPA Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions, is cleared and maintained to those standards for a period of at least 120 days without my intervention, and

2) I have received in WRITING, a letter from the WPA, as per the Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions, and will be billed to the property owner, as also established in the Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions.  The purpose of this second part is to provide me reasonable assurance that these long-standing lot conditions will no longer occur, as it is obvious the owner will not accept this responsibility himself.

The 2016 funds will remain in escrow, and future assessments will be deposited into same escrow account when invoiced and due, UNTIL such time as the WPA FULFILLS their responsibilities and obligations to ME, or the matter is decided BY A COURT OF PROPER JURISDICTION.

I am VERY DISAPPOINTED that the situation has come to this. This is not the way I ENVISIONED our relationship would be with either our neighbor or the WPA."

COMMENTS:
Well, Well!  This is just another resident, who bought property in Wedgefield, with the thought that the board would operate according to the governing documents, and got a "cohesive" board's agenda!  I don't know who the resident is.  I do believe that they relied on our GOVERNING documents before they bought land here.  Many of us have been burned by the promise of protection of our property values, under the governing documents provided to them as they moved forward toward purchase.  Poor souls, they failed to acknowledge, or be aware of this current board's agenda.

I have to congratulate the writer!  Whether the individual knew of Garrison's writing about escrow accounts,  they have hit the nail on the head.  Regardless, this brave resident, has tested the board in what appears to be a real legal challenge.  Thank you, resident.  I wish you luck with this wishy washy - COHESIVE BOARD, can't think for your individual self board, who let's disregard for our governing documents, business, or prudent thought, keep them cohesive.  It should be noted, that the board's response to this letter was not included in the Correspondence file.  Yet, Garrison, almost humorously, reported at a recent monthly meeting, that he HAD responded (WHERE?), and as I recall, told the resident pay, or be fined, and suffer the full action of the collection policy.  

My message to the unknown resident:  "Keep up the good work!  You have a RIGHT to ask the board to uphold the governing documents - your promise at purchase.  I believe that you have a right to withhold your assessment, when your board fails to adhere to our governing documents.  If all else fails, get a copy of the 3 Bob's letter recommending escrow accounts.  Tell your attorney  that the WPA Legal Chair, recommended it, and give them, or the court the letter.

MAYBE YOU ARE HELPING ME GET AN ANSWER TO A QUESTION I PRESENTED TO THE BOARD AT THE 2017 ANNUAL MEETING? 4 READERS ARE GOING BACK TO 2015 TO FIND SOME ANSWERS

OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS SHOULDN'T BE HELD HOSTAGE BY JOKERS ON THE BOARD.  WILL THE BOARD ANSWER MY COMPLIANCE QUESTION, OR WILL THE BOARD CONTINUE TO LEAVE THE PROMISE OF WEDGEFIELD - OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, LEFT IN THE LOCKED BOX OF THEIR BACK DOOR DEALS - THAT ONLY COVER FOR EACH OTHER?

HERE IS A QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE THAT I WROTE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE 2017 ANNUAL MEETING.  IT INCLUDES MY QUESTION, AND INTERACTION WITH THE BOARD.  TODATE, NO ONE HAS PROVIDED THE ANSWERS.

"I asked how my board could have passed numerous changes to the policy manual, without posting first reading on the WPA website as required by a by-law that was submitted by a resident for a vote at an annual meeting, voted on, and passed a few years ago?  I asked where our legal and compliance committee were that they had allowed this to happen for at least a year and a half, with numerous changes to the policy manual, voted on by every member of that board repeatedly.  The board's answer was that they'd take a look at that!  I came back and stated that every board member at that board table was responsible for knowing the by-laws - governing documents, and it went beyond compliance, and legal, when they all voted to approve without following the by-law.  They sat looking at their hands each and everyone of them.  I further asked if they'd have to recind any of those changes, until they did the right thing?  They'll have to look into it."

HERE IS THE 2015 ARTICLE THAT 4 PEOPLE WERE REVIEWING TODAY.  WILL THEY ASK THE BOARD TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS?  LET'S HOPE SO.  IF YOU READ YESTERDAY'S POSTING ON THE SPOIL SITE, YOU OUGHT TO WONDER WHETHER OUR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS MEAN ANYTHING TO THIS BOARD.  

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

PART III, OF THE WPA MARCH MEETING: IS OUR WPA COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE IGNORING THE VERY POLICY MANUAL, THAT THEY CHANGE AGAIN, AND AGAIN, TO SUIT THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND WANTS?

Compliance Chair, Garrison presented at least two policy manual changes, during the March meeting.  The changes were in regard to burning, and signs.  I was at the meeting, and I took notes, but I searched the WPA website today, and couldn't find them.  Here is what the policy manual states, regarding changes:

4.02 A motion to change the Policy Manual must be presented at an open Board meeting, posted on the WPA website for resident comments,and NOT voted on until the following Board meeting. 

I'm not surprised that they weren't listed.  I checked the obvious places on the site:  Home Page, Information from the Board Page, the Approved Policy Manual (note:  There is a grid listing all of the changes, on this page.)  We had this problem before, with many of the current board members.  They just kept voting changes for months, without publishing them, and giving residents the opportunity to comment.  When it was brought to their attention, they mass reproved them in one meeting.

Here is a Wedgefield knock, knock joke.  Knock, Knock, What happens to a resident who writes the board, regarding transgressions BY BOARD MEMBERS, of the governing documents?  Sorry, but true, you get a new policy to accommodate, the offending board members' transgressions.

When board member, McMillin wanted to burn in an ugly pot, on his vacant lot, after he had sent invitations to the "burn", he went to the board table, and tried to change the policy, before the party, despite the fact that there weren't any complaints in the correspondence file, and no mention of problems during the board meetings.   Board member, DeMarchi, declared that "he was tired of legislating for idiots, who break all the rules".  Just another addition to the knock, knock, joke.  Here is what we had all been told,  in the July 2014 Wedgefield Wragg, previous to McMillin, bringing the change to the table.

"NO DUMPING 

NO BURNING 

NO EXCEPTIONS"

During the time that we were awaiting the board's changes in behalf of board member McMillin, he held several "burns" in his ugly pot.  In fact, it still sits there with wood in it, ready to go today.  Since I was at the board meeting, I heard the first reading, and I believe the word "pot" is contained in it.  I can't verify it for you, because your board hasn't followed the policy manual, that they are changing again, in behalf of a fellow board member's whims, and haven't published it, for our review.  Remember, the old saying, "a chicken in every pot"?  If your board passes this change to the policy manual, we'll change the saying to "a pot in every Wedgefield yard"!

WOULDN'T YOU LOVE THIS NEXT TO YOU?

IT COULD BE COMING TO A YARD NEAR YOU, THANKS TO A VOTE BY THIS BOARD!

The board also had a first reading, for a policy manual change, regarding signs.  I had written the board, regarding board member, Walton's signs on boats, that were making his street look like a used boat yard.  Again, I can't provide the specific change in language, because your board has not posted it.  Here is the picture, I had sent to the board.

After I wrote the board, it could appear, that board member, McMillin, had decided to punish a resident who had the audacity, to write the board, about transgressions by a board member.  He then placed the following signs it his yard, and on his vacant (not really) lot.

One, might think that he is testing just how far this board will allow him to go, as he violates policy, and strikes back at residents, who speak out.  It doesn't appear that he was concerned about this board sanctioning fellow board members, because the next sign, was crude, rude, and disgusting.  HERE IT IS:

I'm so use to the cover up game this board plays, that I didn't bother to write the board.  Your board, covered it up at the board table, I believe calling it a Christmas display.  It wasn't.  McMillin  lives on William Screven, as I do, and the painting has my house number painted on it, and was crafted by one of his family members.  I always tell you when something is a rumor.  The rumor is that several members of this board, met with   McMillin about this sign, for almost 3 hours, and he refused to take it down.  No self discipline, or honesty from this board.  In fact, in the case of the Santa SIGN, nothing but a cover up, from this gutless board. If it were anything else, and this board found this sign so appropriate, and unoffensive, perhaps they will ask McMillins' family artist, to paint one of these SIGNS, with Santa crapping on a house with their address on it, and hang it on their WEDGEFIELD PLANTATION ASSOCIATION HOME, in their pride, of their governance, in behalf of residents.  Other wise board, you truly are governing in a self service, to each other, gutless, ruthless, manor, and doing a poor job of covering it up.  Who are the IDIOTS, board member, DeMarchi?

Where is Legal Chair/COMPLIANCE CHAIR (conflict), Garrison?  Why hasn't he seen to the publishing of these proposed changes, to our policy manual? Is it because he is aware that they are as self serving to individual board members, as they are? 

MORE TRICKS, STAGED DRAMA BY THE BOARD? WHAT WAS SAID AT THAT PRIVATE CANAL LOT OWNERS MEETING IN AUGUST 2016, AND HOW WAS THAT DARNED SPOIL SITE INVOLVED WAY BACK THEN. SOMETIMES WHEN YOU AREN'T TRUTHFUL, AS TIME GOES BY, YOU CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT YOUR TRUTH AT THE TIME WAS

I FOUND THIS CLIP ART TO BE APPROPRIATE.  IT WAS TITLED
"TALL TALES"

************************************************

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, again not a lot of time, but I was thinking about that darned spoil site drama, the promises - contained in hand outs from the 2016 closed canal lot meeting (illegal), and the January 2017 WPA Water Amenities Report.  Here we go. Follow the yellow brick road of the actions of this board and committee.

THE FOLLOWING QUOTE COMES RIGHT OUT OF THE HANDOUT PROVIDED DURING THAT PRIVATE CANAL LOT OWNERS MEETING IN AUGUST 2016.    READ IT, 

"1.  Meet with Army Corps of Engineers and determine what will be expected of us. 

We did this on May 10th 2016 and our permit is still valid.  We can even modify it to allow our spoil site to hold additional material if needed with a minor verification done by a civil engineer.  We have decided to go ahead and do this as to maximize the amount we can dredge so that we can get the most out of this next round of dredging." and put it in perspective with the following discussions from the January 2017 meeting, and you decide if those bids for the spoil site that have over a $200,000 range, are for spoil site MAINTENANCE, or TO ADD TO THE DYKES/WALLS FOR THE DREDGING MATERIAL TO BE INCREASED?  THAT WOULD BE A DREDGING EXPENSE, AND NOT MAINTENANCE!  Here are my notes from the January 2017 Water Amenities Report:"Garrison suggested that the committee meet, and then come back and the board would look at how it got funded.  He went on to say that he felt the board had acknowledged - responsibility for keeping it cut down since the WPA owns it, but this is different since dredging...According to my notes, it appears he was interrupted from finishing his statement.  Anderson asked what Garrison's concern was.  Garrison responded that it needed another look, and they need to meet and determine how to hash it out.  He acknowledged that he remembered hearing a while back that it was around $25,000.  John Walton stated that the committee would call for a special meeting prior to the next regular board meeting.  Garrison stated that appropriate notice would have to be given for an open board meeting.  Another board member on the water amenities committee (believe it was Anderson or McMillin - unsure) said the committee wanted to remind the board that the WPA was responsible for the spoil site."  

More tricks for you, me, brought to you by your board and water amenities committee.  Could appear that they have so messed this project up with their deals - against the governing documents, that they are either turning on each other, or just staging more games at our expense.  Take time to take a look at how all this started.
HERE IS THE AUGUST 2016 ARTICLE:

AUGUST 13 - PART TWO OF THE CANAL LOT OWNERS MEETING HAS BEEN ADDED. SCROLL DOWN IN THE ARTICLE TO READ THE NEW INFORMATION

If you have a comment regarding the following article, whether you agree, or not, or if you'd like to share a letter to the board, The Wedgefield Examiner will remove any identifying information, and share it on the blog.  Email:

wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com

I'll report what occurred during the meeting to the best of my ability, according to what I have been told in telephone calls, after.  I don't know where you will go to verify the information, because no one has notified me that they had the strength of conviction to tape the meeting.  As to whether the board, or committee recorded it, no one has confirmed that the standard practice has been followed - doubtful.  If the board did, who would know, as they haven't been posting the tapes of meetings anyway.  Surprise!  Surprise!  Maybe, you'd like to write the board and ask if they have a tape of the meeting, and whether they would provide it immediately, to all of us.

For what I have been told, between 21 - 23 people attended the meeting.  Realize, that that does not indicate 21 - 23 canal lots, as some were couples.  If reports are correct, 6 - 7 members of the board were present.  Some played dual roles as they are both board members, and water amenities committee members.  In my not so humble opinion it doubles their duplicity in harming our troubled decaying community, legally, ethically, and against any foundation of strong business practices.  A few things should be noted, before we begin.  

First, to get around the fact that the board, and committee had failed to properly call the meeting, and open it all members, it was said that the people doing the prep work were not a committee of the board, but VOLUNTEERS.  I can't spend a lot of time here, but this was probably the brilliant idea of legal/compliance chair, Garrison, who has been busy with smoke and mirrors for years, at the expense of, and around our governing documents.

Second, I'm told that when frustrated residents asked why the dredging expense would have to be voluntary on the part of the canal lot owners, he mentioned JUDGE, and rulings.  I've spent enough time on this, there aren't any rulings, by a JUDGE.  So listen up once more.  There have been two dredgings.  The first more than 25 years ago.  Lawsuits followed, and were SETTLED, not adjudicated with a RULING.  The 2009-10 dredging and lawsuits were SETTLED, and the SETTLEMENTS published on both The Wedgefield Times, The Wedgefield Examiner, and read aloud at a WPA annual meeting.  When a resident stated that there were two REFEREE DOCUMENTS,  one forged, legal/compliance/vice president, Garrison said he didn't want to talk about THAT.  My sources could not identify who said it, but when someone mentioned the blog (The Wedgefield Examiner) something like it doesn't always get it right, was thrown out there.  Am I offended?  No, The Wedgefield Examiner tells you when it is informed opinion, provides transcription of their words, and goes to the WPA office, and gets documents, and presents them to you.  LOL

Today, I have been provided the handouts from the meeting, and one of the volunteer's written speeches.  I have had to retype the main handout because the print is small, and scanning won't do the job - not readable from the blog.  I will retype it as written, and INSERT comments in RED, and even note them as comment, so there is no question that  is what it is.

We'll start with the top sheet of the HANDOUT.

WATER

AMENITIES 

COMMITTEE

JOHN WALTON - Comment: board member, and chair of the

                                water amenities committee, ignores our

                                 governing documents, fails to represent the

                                 rights of all members to be present, fails to          

                                 vote in behalf of the best interests of 

                                 Wedgefield.

ADAM ANDERSON - Comment: board member,  ignores our

                                 governing documents, fails to represent the
                                 rights of all members to be present, fails to          
                                 vote in behalf of the best interests of 

                                                  Wedgefield. 

ED WOZNIAK         Comment:  long standing, not board    

                                   member, (voted to committee by the 

                                   board)member of the water amenities 

                                   committee

LARRY MCMILLIN - Comment:  

                                      board member,  ignores our
                                 governing documents, fails to represent the
                                 rights of all members to be present, fails to          
                                 vote in behalf of the best interests of 
                                                  Wedgefield. 

KEITH JOHNSON - Comment:
                                                  board member,  ignores our
                                 governing documents, fails to represent the
                                 rights of all members to be present, fails to          
                                 vote in behalf of the best interests of 
                                                  Wedgefield. 

JAMIE CRISTELLO - Comment:  long standing, not board    
                                   member, (voted to committee by the 
                                   board)member of the water amenities 
                                   committee

CHRIS CARROLL - Comment:  long standing, not board    
                                   member, (voted to committee by the 
                                   board)member of the water amenities 
                                   committee

General Comments on This Page:  The reason The Wedgefield Examiner took the time to add the comments differentiating between board member status, and volunteer committee member on this sheet, is that these board members have repeatedly failed to research our governing documents, bids, proposals, motions and related justification for  motions or enter into any real kind of discussion that would indicate "individual thought and representation of all members of our community, before voting, and following our smoke, and mirrors legal/compliance/ vice president Garrison.  I don't have the patience, or the time to go into what this makes president Walton, the man who ignores all, appoints all chairs, etc.  Please note:  incase you think that The Wedgefield Examiner doesn't know when to capitalize, I learned a lesson a long time ago from a man who resides in this community not to capitalize when the person associated with a title failed to do the job - wasn't fulfilling it.

PS:  if you looked at the number of people putting on this show who hold the title of BOARD MEMBER, and the fact that the committee members are voted on by the board, and the group itself, presented themselves as THE WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE, how can you begin to believe the claim that this was not a FORMAL committee of the board, who requested the boards presence at this meeting, and the board announced it from the BOARD table at the July WPA BOARD MEETING? Where is their any LEGAL, ETICAL, REPRESENTATION OF ALMOST 500 OTHER MEMBERS?

NEXT HANDOUT DOCUMENT typed as written in BLACK, with COMMENTS noted as such and typed in RED.

DREDGING TIMELINE PLAN

The canal system in Wedgefield is in need of a maintenance dredge.  As most of you know, this has historically been a divisive issue.  Our bylaws and covenants are very restrictive when it comes assessing in an unequal manner.  We have been handicapped by this and it has been the biggest obstacle to dredging.  Comment:  historically, this is true, and it has been divisive by various members in the community who brought lawsuits that were never SETTLED.  The last dredging was completed with unequal assessments both regular, and individual, and the canal lot owners paid the heftier sum of $5,000, plus permit costs (over a total of $160,000) plus the regular assessment of $175/yr for 5 years (planned, voted & approved by the board, under review, and counsel of the board attorney).  You should have the lawsuit background down pat by now.  It should be noted that legal/compliance/vice president Garrison was speaker to large audiences, contributor to the group that supported the three individuals who sued the board who voted the last dredging according to our governing documents.  Mr. Garrison has been on the board driving this train against individual assessment, while we pay the legal fees for his antics, for years, and the board members noted above on the committee, and all those currently at the board table, have voted without question toward his mission, rather than in behave of Wedgefield's best interests.

This is a time line of what needs to occur in order to dredge our canals.

1.  Meet with Army Corps of Engineers and determine what will be expected of us. 

We did this on May 10th 2016 and our permit is still valid.  We can even modify it to allow our spoil site to hold additional material if needed with a minor verification done by a civil engineer.  We have decided to go ahead and do this as to maximize the amount we can dredge so that we can get the most out of this next round of dredging.  Brief comment:  a formal committee of the board, greatly composed of board members, backed by volunteers on the committee approved by the entire board, took this step without ever bringing it to the board table and reporting it to all of us, let alone it ever having opportunity to be taped, or entered into the minutes.

2. Meet with the WPA leadership and garner their support and find out what they expect in order to gain that support.

We did this on May 12th 2016.  We met with the president and vice president of the WPA to gather their ideas and support for the project.  They were receptive to our ideas.  Comments:  where in our governing documents is this allowed?  But look at the two characters they met with, and remember that because 4 of the members of the water amenities committee are board members, we have 6 of the current board members failing every last one of us let alone our governing documents.  The general consensus of this meeting was if the waterfront properties can privately raise the money needed, the WPA will contribute the monies set aside for this purpose in the reserves.  Comments:  When did these 6 board members get all this power, and get to conduct this high level of business without all present, forget that we never got to see discussion - NOTHING, because these board members are failing to follow our governing documents any place!

Readers, I'm stopping here, not for drama, but I have a life, and will continue to add to the bottom of this article, until we are finished.  Stay tuned.

THE FOLLOWING WAS ADDED ON AUG. 13.  WE RESUME WITH THE SAME DOCUMENT.  DOCUMENT TYPED IN BLACK, COMMENTS IN RED.

The WPA will allow the use of the WPA name, permit and will generally support the project so long as these contingencies are met.  The WPA is willing to allocate up to 1/3 of the total cost not to exceed the reserve funding already in place.  For the past 5 years the WPA has allocated roughly 15% of its yearly budget for canal dredging.  This money is already in place and our plan will NOT cause any rise in assessments or cost ANYONE not living on the canal ANY additional money.  We cannot emphasize enough that we have no intention of tearing this community apart again.  This plan put the burden on the canal lot owners.

Comment:  How can this board have made all of these decisions behind our backs, and against our governing documents (the meeting to make these decisions) without noticing the members (in May), and failing to report it to us at the May, June, or July regular monthly meeting?  Since they didn't bother - where is a motion, discussion, and a vote?  This is just plain corrupt governance.  I don't trust what the board has promised based on how they have proceeded behind our backs, additionally historically we have been down this path of promises.  During the period of time - years, that the canal lot owners were paying all the expenses involved in securing the dredging permit for the 2009-10 dredging, and reporting progress through the canal committee, at monthly meetings, and in the Wragg, as we got close to securing the permit, the board threw the canal committee off the structure of the board, removing ability to use WPA name for permit, etc.  The canal lot owners had to pay legal fees to stop that board action.  A JUDGE, stopped the action of the board, the committee was reinstated as a committee of the board, and the canal lot owners were allowed to proceed to permit.  It cost the canal lot owners thousands when a board broke similar promises to those stated above.  While Garrison was not on the board at that time, he rose out of the group as a leader in the Concerned Citizens, which grew out of some of the very board members who caused that delay, and expense last time around.  

3. Obtain bids for the dredging.

We have learned during the bidding process that for accurate bids we need a hydrographic survey of the canals and a topographic survey of the spoil site.  This is needed to accurately determine how much spoils need to be removed, and to determine how much was removed after the work is complete.  The bids we have now are preliminary and based on a cost per cubic yard.  We have approached 4 engineering firms, 7 land surveyors, and 11 dredging contractors.  We have narrowed this list down to 1-2 in each category that we like and feel would be a good fit.

The plan would be raise phase 1 money now and do the engineering and surveying work this fall.  Then begin raising phase 2 money and have it collected by spring of 2017 so that dredging can begin in fall 2017.  

Comments:  Briefly, at a glance the process appears sound, however since it was all done under, the table, violating procurement, and governance documents, why, or how, can we ever verify any accuracy, and truth?  No, reporting from the board table.  No consideration of the general membership to hear, and evaluate for themselves.  This whole mess causes division of our community, and is a walking time bomb for future lawsuits.  Having served on a board that voted to fund, and dredge, and was sued by 3 members who Garrison openly supported, I'm not surprised at his illegal actions, but I am surprised that anyone, canal owners, or fellow board members believe him.  I sat, and participated in depositions for the lawsuits, and current board member McMillin did also.  Even with every step out in the open to the last dredging, we had questions from the other side - then Garrison's opposing, suing team.  Garrison knows better than this, and it appears he doesn't care, and is setting this up for failure.  We know where McMillin, John Walton, Adam Anderson, Keith Johnson, - all board members, president Jacky Walton, and legal/compliance chair/vice president, Garrison stand because they have been present, and accounted for, in harming our community.

4. Solicit contributions from the canal lot owners.

While the exact cost of dredging is not yet unknown, the engineering and surveying cost are approximately $20,000.  The rough dredging bids we have range from $210,000 to just over $600,000.  We want to raise this money in two phases with the engineering phase first.  Our goal is to ask for voluntary contributions of $400 per lot.  Once the engineering work is complete, we will know an exact figure for phase 2.  The money we raise will be held in an account at Anderson Brothers Bank.  The checks will be 2 signee checks and a complete accounting of all incoming and out going funds will be kept with complete transparency.  All of these tractions will be reported in depth at the monthly WPA meetings and all bookkeeping will be available to be viewed at any time by any contributor.  If for any reason the project is abandoned, the money will returned to the contributor.  However, the survey money once contracted, will not be.

5. Go to the WPA board of directors and present our funding and bids.

The WPA currently has approximately $115,000 earmarked for dredging and by next year that number will be in the $135,000 range.  Once we have our funding in place the WPA will contribute their funding earmarked for dredging and then enter into a contract to dredge the canals.  All of the permits, contracts, etc. will be in the WPA name.  The WPA will be the responsible party.  The WPA has been very cooperative and supportive of this plan.  We have spent years looking at every conceivable idea imaginable and this is the ONLY way to make this work without forcing the issue on the community and ripping apart old wounds.  We know there will be naysayers and those who won't support us but we have spent years researching this and there are certain realities that can not be ignored.  Our covenants are not written in a way that allows for differential assessments, and it is unfair to assess equally for dredging for lots off of the canal.  In order to set up a separate regime for the canal lots you need 100% participation.  There is simply no easy solution.  This is the ONLY viable option.  We have the WPA Board of Director's support.  We have the permits.  We want to do this responsibility and peacefully and we need your support.  The time is now!

Thank you for your consideration.

Make checks payable to:

Wedgefield Waterfront Property Owners
1284 Georgetown Hwy
Georgetown SC 29440

Comments:  First, and foremost this last section has so many twisted facets, that I could barely read it, without genuine sadness as to how misrepresented every member of this association, has been treated by this board.  I'm sadden further about the apathy in this community that has lead to the re-election of these board members time, and time again.  I quote, "We have the WPA Board of Director's support", we now know they gained it in closed meetings, with no reporting, and most of those who developed the plan are board members.  I quote, "Our covenants are not written in a way that allows for differential assessments, and it is unfair to assess equal for dredging for lots of of the canal."  The last dredging had what equated to differential assessments, through the use of regular, and individual assessments, under our by-laws.  There are no rulings by any JUDGE, and no fault was found in using them in the language of the lawsuit settlements.  They are going to deposit the money in Anderson Bank.   Make your checks payable Wedgefield Waterfront Property Owners.  Who is going to account? Who is going to let you see the books?  It is all a sham, brought to you by your board.

Message to the board:  When will you quit dividing our community with your illegal antics?  Basically, the canal lot owners have spoken loud, and clear to you twice.  First when surveyed them a few years ago about that separate regime concept, and only 14 responded out of 79, negatively.   I was one of the people who bothered to respond, and if I recall my response was that after my experiences with this WPA board, as a home owner I would NEVER put another board, between me and my property, and expect any ethical representation. The second response came when you scheduled this illegal meeting, and less than 20% of the canal lot owners bothered to attend.  

You might ask whether I would like the canals dredged?  Absolutely!  I will pay whatever my board assesses me, legally, openly, and through proper recognition of our governing documents.  I won't participate in any project that fixes my back yard when so much is ignored in every corner, and back yard in Wedgefield.  It is about time we looked out for all of Wedgefield, and the only way to do that is through the promise of Wedgefield - our governing documents, and this board, and committee isn't doing that.

NOTES FROM THE WPA JANUARY 2018 BOARD MEETING - THE WATER AMENITIES REPORT

************************************************

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, sorry it has been so long since The Wedgefield Examiner posted.  Our home is still medical central for two loved ones.  One is here in Wedgefield, and the other in Connecticut.  If you think the Wedgefield Examiner is tough, you ought to have to deal with Nurse Ratchet.  Due to time constraints, I will continue to publish, but probably one committee report at a time.  Today, we kick off with a key report - The Water Amenities Report.  I will provide the information to the best of my ability from the notes I took that evening.

Board member Walton (John) reported.  There was nothing new to report on the landing.  The canal committee is in phase II.  The specs provided by EarthWorks must be completed, and inspected before the Army Core of Engineers will allow dredging.   The voluntary funds ($400 collected from participating canal lot owners - last reported count at about 50 of the 79 lot owners) are almost exhausted.

The board opened six bids at the board table.  EarthWorks put out the bid specifications.  The bids are as follows:

1) J Mack Construction - $48,034

2) CL Benton & Sons - $245,000

3) D&L Site Work - $119,900

4)Unsure of company name - $94,900

5) Brad Davis - $25,000

6)HERR Inc. - $255,000

Garrison questioned the vast range between the bids for the same scope of work, stating it was hard to believe.  He suggested that the committee go through bids and make sure they were all bidding on the same specs.  John Walton stated that they were all on the spoil site when EarthWorks explained the work to be done. He went on to say that "we" had a bid originally and the engineering firm said that it was way out of line.  We didn't need to spend that much money.  Anderson said that the bid for $25,000 spelled out exactly what was required.

Garrison suggested that the committee meet, and then come back and the board would look at how it got funded.  He went on to say that he felt the board had acknowledged - responsibility for keeping it cut down since the WPA owns it, but this is different since dredging...According to my notes, it appears he was interrupted from finishing his statement.  Anderson asked what Garrison's concern was.  Garrison responded that it needed another look, and they need to meet and determine how to hash it out.  He acknowledged that he remembered hearing a while back that it was around $25,000.  John Walton stated that the committee would call for a special meeting prior to the next regular board meeting.  Garrison stated that appropriate notice would have to be given for an open board meeting.  Another board member on the water amenities committee (believe it was Anderson or McMillin - unsure) said the committee wanted to remind the board that the WPA was responsible for the spoil site.  

John Walton went on to say that they were going to have to ask for an extension on the permit as it expires in 2019.

Please note:  Again, I have provided the above information to the best of my ability.  I was in attendance and took notes.  You can't go to the tapes to verify, because your board removed them from their website quite some time ago.  My comments follow.

I have watched the legal reports for years, prior to the canal lot owner only meeting in mid 2016.  As to legal, we've had several changes in attorneys by our legal committee - one who was disbarred, we've had settlements by mediators or referees - not judges.  One of the referees who disagreed with himself on individual assessments - in two cases, died, and we never got real answers from the board, except when pushed that some unauthorized person signed the referee's signature on the first document.  We truly found out that dead men can't speak even through legal written documents, and that you could supposedly forge a document involved in a critical decision - settlement, and your board didn't want it investigated.  We had a closed canal lot owners meeting - scheduled, announced, attended by 4-5 sitting board members, with promises made of funding of up to $135,000 - never voted on at a board meeting until long after it was promised, and the committee had collected $400 voluntarily from approximately 50 canal lot owners, based on illegal promises.  We've had a spoil site supposedly maintained through a grounds' contract that at times, it was stated was maintained according to contract, was not maintained because of bad advise from a former sitting board member, plus a claim from a sitting board member that the entire board knew why.  The water amenities chair then and current, used the term neglected, and we needed a professional burn of the spoil site, and then later it was said the site was damaged but no one told us how.  What a mess!

One thing stood out for me, more than others at the January board meeting.  There was a lot of hype from the beginning that we had to hurry and scurry to get to the maintenance dredge allowed within the current permit.  Many of you allowed the committee, and the board to put the rush on your decisions regarding the $400, didn't care that governing documents weren't followed regarding promises of funding, or that the membership - non canal lot owners were not allowed to attend the meeting, because time was a wasting.  I suggested from the beginning that you take your time, force your board and committee to do the right thing, and ask for an extension on the permit.  Your board and committee would never acknowledge at the board table, that the potential to extend the life of the permit resided in the current permit.  Now, that things are so screwed up - the committee and board will seek to extend the permit.