Brady and I are still on vacation for a few days so this will be brief. What resident could have written the Board and received a prompt REACTION? Certainly not me, I've been waiting FIVE WEEKS! Well, it was Fred Thomas.
Fred Thomas can get action. Board Secretary, Al DeMarchi was going to get to the bottom of any issues Fred Thomas had so he calls and questions the integrity of resident Taco Wijthoff. There is more to this story but vacation calls.
In the mean time if you see Fred Thomas ask him how he gets the Board's attention so quickly. If he answers be sure and email the blog. I'll be happy to share the information so you can be heard and answered by our Board.
If you see Secretary Al DeMarchi be sure and ask him the same question.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Thursday, July 12, 2012
BRADY ANNOUNCES 8,000 HITS TO THE BLOG
Poor Brady can't even take a vacation. The Blog has had 8,000 hits since we began nine months ago. BACK TO YOUR VACATION BRADY!
Please stay tuned. If you haven't already, please read the last 5 or 6 articles. We'll be back up and running on July 18th.
Please stay tuned. If you haven't already, please read the last 5 or 6 articles. We'll be back up and running on July 18th.
Monday, July 9, 2012
RESIDENT RECEIVES A PHONE CALL FROM THE BOARD SECRETARY
Your Board Secretary, Al DeMarchi called Taco Wijthoff around noon today, July 9th. He was questioning Wijthoff's authority to cast votes on all his lots. As I spoke to Wijthoff he was incensed. Initially, when Wijthoff asked what prompted his inquiry, DeMarchi said that it was past Boards????? I'm not even going to ask which one. What difference would it make? Wijthoff has voted legally for over 20 years. Like Wijthoff, I'm wondering what really prompted the question.
Later in the evening Wijthoff called DeMarchi. This time DeMarchi claimed the call was prompted by a letter. One would have to assume to the Board. Wijthoff, then called three Board Members. They claim they weren't aware.
Wijthoff appeared to take the question, as a question to his integrity. I don't blame him.
Briefly, that is the story. From here on I'll leave Wijthoff out of it. As a fellow resident, I have observed the generosity of Wijthoff to our community. Time, money, donation of plant materials, etc. Does his LLC own several lots? Yes, I believe around 30. I watched, as he reacted to the disgusting treatment by the "after the recall Board" as they unjustly and without foundation attacked his wife, while she was on the Board. What is next? Why this? Where was DeMarchi coming from?
For once, we need to hold Board Members, who make such attacks responsible! What do I mean? Enough is enough. If your Board Secretary had the guts to make this call because he received a letter, there is a whole lot that is wrong.
First, three Board Members weren't aware! Who is telling the truth? Maybe, it isn't as simple os that. Month after month, as I sit in meetings I note that issues come up where at least one Board Member is kept out of the loop. What is worse is when he questions, your other Board Members vote against him, roll their eyes, are just rude. After we as residents, vote and elect a Board Member, what gives one, or some, the right to deny our votes and keep a Board Member or Members, out of real decision making? Think not? It happened last month. DeMarchi allocated the reserves. McBride tried to ask questions. Your Board voted yes to a plan similar to the one DeMarchi tried to submit as a resident in 2009.
If there was a letter, usual procedure is to forward it to every Board Member and place a copy in the correspondence file. Doesn't appear that happened. We don't know. Why would three Board Members not be aware?
Let's say for discussion that the letter was distributed. Who helped DeMarchi make the decision to move forward and call Wijthoff? Three claim they didn't have knowledge of it. Even more, give me the name of the resident that has the power to get DeMarchi, or anyone else on this Board to answer questions. Read the next 4-5 articles. Your Board is above it all, unless it suits their agenda.
To me, this action, a disturbing, insulting call to a resident's home, questioning their integrity, reeks of this Board's attitude. It's this kind of action that causes me to understand their closed meetings, lack of documentation, denial of resident review of documents, seeking legal opinions over and over with the question poised for the attorney to give the opinion they want. This Board, most of whom violate our governing documents and policies regularly, dares to question the integrity of this resident????
Will someone please write the Board and ask to review the correspondence file. Look for this letter. I'm not calling anyone a liar, but I'm waiting to see documents that this Board says exist, yet won't produce.
Wonder if this issue will be discussed at the closed meeting called by DeMarchi. Remember DeMarchi breaks his pledge to all of us when he sits at another closed meeting, even more so when he calls it. He has company. Four of our Board Members pledged as candidates to stop closed meetings. This Board uses them regularly.
To Taco Wijthoff I say what my mother always said to me, "Consider the Source". I don't trust this source, and I expect the balance of the Board will sit on their hands, not think according to what is legal and ethical, and sing the song of the current annointed director.
Sorry this was rushed. The Wedgefield Examiner will be up and running by the 18th.
DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION? SEND IT TO wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com.
Later in the evening Wijthoff called DeMarchi. This time DeMarchi claimed the call was prompted by a letter. One would have to assume to the Board. Wijthoff, then called three Board Members. They claim they weren't aware.
Wijthoff appeared to take the question, as a question to his integrity. I don't blame him.
Briefly, that is the story. From here on I'll leave Wijthoff out of it. As a fellow resident, I have observed the generosity of Wijthoff to our community. Time, money, donation of plant materials, etc. Does his LLC own several lots? Yes, I believe around 30. I watched, as he reacted to the disgusting treatment by the "after the recall Board" as they unjustly and without foundation attacked his wife, while she was on the Board. What is next? Why this? Where was DeMarchi coming from?
For once, we need to hold Board Members, who make such attacks responsible! What do I mean? Enough is enough. If your Board Secretary had the guts to make this call because he received a letter, there is a whole lot that is wrong.
First, three Board Members weren't aware! Who is telling the truth? Maybe, it isn't as simple os that. Month after month, as I sit in meetings I note that issues come up where at least one Board Member is kept out of the loop. What is worse is when he questions, your other Board Members vote against him, roll their eyes, are just rude. After we as residents, vote and elect a Board Member, what gives one, or some, the right to deny our votes and keep a Board Member or Members, out of real decision making? Think not? It happened last month. DeMarchi allocated the reserves. McBride tried to ask questions. Your Board voted yes to a plan similar to the one DeMarchi tried to submit as a resident in 2009.
If there was a letter, usual procedure is to forward it to every Board Member and place a copy in the correspondence file. Doesn't appear that happened. We don't know. Why would three Board Members not be aware?
Let's say for discussion that the letter was distributed. Who helped DeMarchi make the decision to move forward and call Wijthoff? Three claim they didn't have knowledge of it. Even more, give me the name of the resident that has the power to get DeMarchi, or anyone else on this Board to answer questions. Read the next 4-5 articles. Your Board is above it all, unless it suits their agenda.
To me, this action, a disturbing, insulting call to a resident's home, questioning their integrity, reeks of this Board's attitude. It's this kind of action that causes me to understand their closed meetings, lack of documentation, denial of resident review of documents, seeking legal opinions over and over with the question poised for the attorney to give the opinion they want. This Board, most of whom violate our governing documents and policies regularly, dares to question the integrity of this resident????
Will someone please write the Board and ask to review the correspondence file. Look for this letter. I'm not calling anyone a liar, but I'm waiting to see documents that this Board says exist, yet won't produce.
Wonder if this issue will be discussed at the closed meeting called by DeMarchi. Remember DeMarchi breaks his pledge to all of us when he sits at another closed meeting, even more so when he calls it. He has company. Four of our Board Members pledged as candidates to stop closed meetings. This Board uses them regularly.
To Taco Wijthoff I say what my mother always said to me, "Consider the Source". I don't trust this source, and I expect the balance of the Board will sit on their hands, not think according to what is legal and ethical, and sing the song of the current annointed director.
Sorry this was rushed. The Wedgefield Examiner will be up and running by the 18th.
DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION? SEND IT TO wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com.
THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER TAKES A VACATION - HOW CAN WE I HAVE MORE IIMPORTANT QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD DOESN'T SEEM TO WANT TO ANSWER
Brady, Denis, and I will be celebrating a graduation, enjoying adult children, siblings, and grandchildren from June 10 through the 18th.
STAY TUNED, WE HAVEN'T GONE AWAY AND NEITHER HAVE THE EVENTS OF OUR GOVERNANCE. THERE WILL BE A BOARD MEETING WHILE WE ARE OUT AND ABOUT WITH FAMILY. THANKS TO THE WEDGEFIELD TIMES, I'LL BE ABLE TO CATCH UP IMMEDIATELY.
PLEASE PLAN ON ATTENDING THE JULY 17TH BOARD MEETING. IT FOLLOWS ANOTHER CLOSED BOARD MEETING. BE CONCERNED WHEN YOUR BOARD CAN'T DISCUSS BUSINESS IN PUBLIC AND WHEN THEY DO GET TO THE BOARD TABLE THEY FAIL TO GIVE DETAIL.
DON'T FORGET TO READ THE NEW ARTICLES ADDED OVER THE WEEKEND AND TODAY.
HERE ARE THE INPORTANT QUESTIONS I SENT TO THE BOARD ON JULY 3:
DATE: July 3, 2012
TO: Al DeMarchi, Secretary
Bob Garrison, Legal Chair
Jason Barrier, Community Liaison
CC: Please distribute to the entire Board & Mr. LaFrance (William Douglas)
Copy to Wedgefield Examiner
NOTE: Please place a copy in the WPA Correspondence File
FROM: Madeline Y. Claveloux
RE: 1. Error in Approved March 2012 Meeting Minutes
2. Question Regarding Attorney Moody & Motion To Alter or Amend
Judgment
3. Question of Responsibility of Community Liaison to Secure Answer
To Resident Requests When The Management Company Fails
1. Error in Approved March 2012 Meeting Minutes
Secretary DeMarchi, I appreciated your prompt response to my email regarding what I perceive as a critical error in the March 2012 Minutes. I have listened to the tape and the motion stated on the tape is not reflected in the approved minutes and may be viewed as misleading. Additionally I have reviewed the “MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGEMENT” file by Attorney Fulton, and your statement that the minutes reflected Attorney Fulton’s motion is not correct. I have provided page one of the document in which is attached. (note: provided in a previous article)
The entire document can be viewed at The Wedgefield Times. Com, if a copy is not immediately available to you. Please see article # 56, “Appeal of Judge Pyatt’s June 22 Order (2010-CP-22-01151)”, scroll down to sub topic - “Post Order Submittals“, end of first paragraph - “here”. I have provided this information to readers of The Wedgefield Examiner, so they might read the content of the order. Quite frankly, my review has left me with some questions for the WPA Legal Chair.
Will the Board amend the approved March Minutes? In the least they fail to represent what was recorded on the tape.
2. Question Regarding Attorney Moody & Motion To Alter or Amend Judgment
Legal Chair Garrison, after reading the content of the motion detailed in #1, I have a genuine question as to how Attorney Moody can represent the WPA without conflict in this matter. My concern stems from the fact that Fulton’s motion begs for adherence to the WPA governing documents. Two courts had ruled on then Board Attorney Moran’s arguments that the recall was legal under SC Non Profit Law.
You’ll remember that Attorney Moody gave an opinion to the WPA Board in 2011 that argued that the 2011 Petitioners could not proceed with a recall because they violated the governing documents. The WPA Board voted based on that opinion to deny the petitioners a recall meeting, under SC Law.
How can Attorney Moody represent the Board now, when it appears he, and Attorney Fulton would both be arguing in behalf of our governing documents, when Moran had argued against them? You were on the Board at the time. Isn’t this both a legal and ethical conflict?
3. Question of Responsibility of Community Liaison to Secure Answer
To Resident Requests When The Management Company Fails
My last question is to the Board in general. I wrote Mr. LaFrance over two weeks ago with questions that required information to help me make a decision that was very important to me. To date, I have not received any answers. What is the responsibility of the Community Liaison to assist residents in obtaining a response? Is failure to answer a violation of their contract. As residents we don’t know because no one will answer the question as to whether we can see the contract. At this point it appears that sending requests to the management company has just created another limbo or dead letter office for residents. What is the problem? Some of these questions could have been answered with a yes or no, and an advisement the more information was to follow.
STAY TUNED, WE HAVEN'T GONE AWAY AND NEITHER HAVE THE EVENTS OF OUR GOVERNANCE. THERE WILL BE A BOARD MEETING WHILE WE ARE OUT AND ABOUT WITH FAMILY. THANKS TO THE WEDGEFIELD TIMES, I'LL BE ABLE TO CATCH UP IMMEDIATELY.
PLEASE PLAN ON ATTENDING THE JULY 17TH BOARD MEETING. IT FOLLOWS ANOTHER CLOSED BOARD MEETING. BE CONCERNED WHEN YOUR BOARD CAN'T DISCUSS BUSINESS IN PUBLIC AND WHEN THEY DO GET TO THE BOARD TABLE THEY FAIL TO GIVE DETAIL.
DON'T FORGET TO READ THE NEW ARTICLES ADDED OVER THE WEEKEND AND TODAY.
HERE ARE THE INPORTANT QUESTIONS I SENT TO THE BOARD ON JULY 3:
DATE: July 3, 2012
TO: Al DeMarchi, Secretary
Bob Garrison, Legal Chair
Jason Barrier, Community Liaison
CC: Please distribute to the entire Board & Mr. LaFrance (William Douglas)
Copy to Wedgefield Examiner
NOTE: Please place a copy in the WPA Correspondence File
FROM: Madeline Y. Claveloux
RE: 1. Error in Approved March 2012 Meeting Minutes
2. Question Regarding Attorney Moody & Motion To Alter or Amend
Judgment
3. Question of Responsibility of Community Liaison to Secure Answer
To Resident Requests When The Management Company Fails
1. Error in Approved March 2012 Meeting Minutes
Secretary DeMarchi, I appreciated your prompt response to my email regarding what I perceive as a critical error in the March 2012 Minutes. I have listened to the tape and the motion stated on the tape is not reflected in the approved minutes and may be viewed as misleading. Additionally I have reviewed the “MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGEMENT” file by Attorney Fulton, and your statement that the minutes reflected Attorney Fulton’s motion is not correct. I have provided page one of the document in which is attached. (note: provided in a previous article)
The entire document can be viewed at The Wedgefield Times. Com, if a copy is not immediately available to you. Please see article # 56, “Appeal of Judge Pyatt’s June 22 Order (2010-CP-22-01151)”, scroll down to sub topic - “Post Order Submittals“, end of first paragraph - “here”. I have provided this information to readers of The Wedgefield Examiner, so they might read the content of the order. Quite frankly, my review has left me with some questions for the WPA Legal Chair.
Will the Board amend the approved March Minutes? In the least they fail to represent what was recorded on the tape.
2. Question Regarding Attorney Moody & Motion To Alter or Amend Judgment
Legal Chair Garrison, after reading the content of the motion detailed in #1, I have a genuine question as to how Attorney Moody can represent the WPA without conflict in this matter. My concern stems from the fact that Fulton’s motion begs for adherence to the WPA governing documents. Two courts had ruled on then Board Attorney Moran’s arguments that the recall was legal under SC Non Profit Law.
You’ll remember that Attorney Moody gave an opinion to the WPA Board in 2011 that argued that the 2011 Petitioners could not proceed with a recall because they violated the governing documents. The WPA Board voted based on that opinion to deny the petitioners a recall meeting, under SC Law.
How can Attorney Moody represent the Board now, when it appears he, and Attorney Fulton would both be arguing in behalf of our governing documents, when Moran had argued against them? You were on the Board at the time. Isn’t this both a legal and ethical conflict?
3. Question of Responsibility of Community Liaison to Secure Answer
To Resident Requests When The Management Company Fails
My last question is to the Board in general. I wrote Mr. LaFrance over two weeks ago with questions that required information to help me make a decision that was very important to me. To date, I have not received any answers. What is the responsibility of the Community Liaison to assist residents in obtaining a response? Is failure to answer a violation of their contract. As residents we don’t know because no one will answer the question as to whether we can see the contract. At this point it appears that sending requests to the management company has just created another limbo or dead letter office for residents. What is the problem? Some of these questions could have been answered with a yes or no, and an advisement the more information was to follow.
FOUR WEEKS AND COUNTING - DON'T STOP READING - A FEW NEW ARTICLES FOLLOW
On July 11th, I will have been waiting 4 weeks for an answer from the Board, or the management company. Review the letter below. You'll note that 3 - 4 of my requests could have been answered immediately. The documents requested should be at their finger tips. If either entity was trying to follow our governing documents, they could have sent a immediate response to that question, noting more information would follow. They didn't bother. Will you be next? Do I have to pay my assessment if the Board & mnanagement company fail to live up to the governing documents I accepted when I purchased my property? Could it be breach of contract?
HERE IS MY LETTER - AGAIN! P.S. Maybe it truly is a dead letter office, or maybe the Board and Management Company have misfiled it. WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TAKE A MINUTE, COPY IT, SEND IT TO THE BOARD, UNDER YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS? That might get a response that you could share with me.
June 20, 2012
TO: WPA BOARD c/o Mr. LaFrance, William Douglas
FROM: Madeline Y. Claveloux
RE: Request for Copy
Clarification and Provision of Information
Objection & Clarification
Request for Copy of Archival Documentation
Request for Copy
I am requesting a copy of Attorney Moody’s legal opinion regarding the confidentiality statement. Please let me know when I can pick it up at the office.
Provision of Information
I was surprised, and am skeptical about the statement made that committee members are indemnified through the Board’s insurance. Please provide a copy of the section of the Board’s Insurance policy, or quote the section’s specific language, regarding this coverage.
Clarification
I believe I heard Legal Chair Bob Garrison state that committee members and Board Members could be removed if they violated the Confidentiality Agreement. I credit myself with a clear understanding and thorough knowledge of our governing documents.
Please provide the section and language in our governing documents that would allow removal of a Board Member under those circumstances. My reading indicates that unless a Board Member has not paid their assessment, has committed a crime against the association and been found guilty, that there is no avenue to remove a Board Member short of a recall.
The answer is important, as we have had several Board Members publicly violate the Confidentiality Agreement. Jude Davis mentioned the very public disclosure in the Wragg earlier this year. At last months meeting the payment status of Mr. Grey was discussed openly at the Board Meeting. What will happen to these Board Members?
Who will enforce the policy?
Request for Archival Documentation
During the June Meeting it was stated that the Confidentiality Agreement has been in place for many years. It wasn’t mandatory that it be signed but it was in the Policy Manual.. As a former Board Member I have numerous old copies of the Policy Manual and can’t find it. Please provide a properly dated copy of this section of the Policy Manual.
Objection & Clarification
At least as of yesterday, I was a member of the Water Amenities Committee, assigned to the Canal subcommittee. I have not signed the Confidentiality Agreement on the advice of my attorney. I have not hidden the fact that I have not signed it. In fact I made Board Members McBride, Garrison, and Anderson aware of the fact. I have been allowed to attend meetings with the promise of my silence on the items discussed. I have kept my word.
I am considering signing the Confidentiality Agreement, after the items listed above have been provided, against my attorney’s advice. I am in agreement that any contact Board Member, or committee member has with individual resident financial information, should be held confidential. In fact, the document relates only to confidentiality of that information. I believe I could sign and agree to that. However, if I did sign it and were allowed to sit on committees that is the ONLY information I would find it necessary to hold confidential. The rest would be at my discretion.
It appears this Board has taken an agreement utilized for the sole purpose of protecting individual residents, and used it as a broad brush to silence and hide information from the residents. They are destroying the best attributes of the committee process. It appears that they are afraid of residents having and discussing information.
My verbal agreement went against every principle I ever had as I worked with and on committees and Boards, over 25 years in the non profit arena. Any appearance of secrecy at this point in our history will come back to bite this Board. How insulting to the residents intelligence, for Garrison to make a motion to spend Association funds, on seeking advice regarding a “secret option” for the canals! Most of us don’t spend money until we know what we are buying. Right now, we are contributing to a secret.
Board, please provide the information requested above so I can make a good decision for myself. If the Board has made a decision as to whether I will be allowed to remain on the committee, please be decent and professional enough to notify me.
HERE IS MY LETTER - AGAIN! P.S. Maybe it truly is a dead letter office, or maybe the Board and Management Company have misfiled it. WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TAKE A MINUTE, COPY IT, SEND IT TO THE BOARD, UNDER YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS? That might get a response that you could share with me.
June 20, 2012
TO: WPA BOARD c/o Mr. LaFrance, William Douglas
FROM: Madeline Y. Claveloux
RE: Request for Copy
Clarification and Provision of Information
Objection & Clarification
Request for Copy of Archival Documentation
Request for Copy
I am requesting a copy of Attorney Moody’s legal opinion regarding the confidentiality statement. Please let me know when I can pick it up at the office.
Provision of Information
I was surprised, and am skeptical about the statement made that committee members are indemnified through the Board’s insurance. Please provide a copy of the section of the Board’s Insurance policy, or quote the section’s specific language, regarding this coverage.
Clarification
I believe I heard Legal Chair Bob Garrison state that committee members and Board Members could be removed if they violated the Confidentiality Agreement. I credit myself with a clear understanding and thorough knowledge of our governing documents.
Please provide the section and language in our governing documents that would allow removal of a Board Member under those circumstances. My reading indicates that unless a Board Member has not paid their assessment, has committed a crime against the association and been found guilty, that there is no avenue to remove a Board Member short of a recall.
The answer is important, as we have had several Board Members publicly violate the Confidentiality Agreement. Jude Davis mentioned the very public disclosure in the Wragg earlier this year. At last months meeting the payment status of Mr. Grey was discussed openly at the Board Meeting. What will happen to these Board Members?
Who will enforce the policy?
Request for Archival Documentation
During the June Meeting it was stated that the Confidentiality Agreement has been in place for many years. It wasn’t mandatory that it be signed but it was in the Policy Manual.. As a former Board Member I have numerous old copies of the Policy Manual and can’t find it. Please provide a properly dated copy of this section of the Policy Manual.
Objection & Clarification
At least as of yesterday, I was a member of the Water Amenities Committee, assigned to the Canal subcommittee. I have not signed the Confidentiality Agreement on the advice of my attorney. I have not hidden the fact that I have not signed it. In fact I made Board Members McBride, Garrison, and Anderson aware of the fact. I have been allowed to attend meetings with the promise of my silence on the items discussed. I have kept my word.
I am considering signing the Confidentiality Agreement, after the items listed above have been provided, against my attorney’s advice. I am in agreement that any contact Board Member, or committee member has with individual resident financial information, should be held confidential. In fact, the document relates only to confidentiality of that information. I believe I could sign and agree to that. However, if I did sign it and were allowed to sit on committees that is the ONLY information I would find it necessary to hold confidential. The rest would be at my discretion.
It appears this Board has taken an agreement utilized for the sole purpose of protecting individual residents, and used it as a broad brush to silence and hide information from the residents. They are destroying the best attributes of the committee process. It appears that they are afraid of residents having and discussing information.
My verbal agreement went against every principle I ever had as I worked with and on committees and Boards, over 25 years in the non profit arena. Any appearance of secrecy at this point in our history will come back to bite this Board. How insulting to the residents intelligence, for Garrison to make a motion to spend Association funds, on seeking advice regarding a “secret option” for the canals! Most of us don’t spend money until we know what we are buying. Right now, we are contributing to a secret.
Board, please provide the information requested above so I can make a good decision for myself. If the Board has made a decision as to whether I will be allowed to remain on the committee, please be decent and professional enough to notify me.
Sunday, July 8, 2012
RESIDENT RESPONDS TO THE CONDITIONS IN WEDGEFIELD
The following was received at wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com It speaks for itself. In the mean time read the following 3 articles they were published over the long weekend.
HERE IS THE EMAIL:
Where's the Beef (Documents)
FROM: Jude Davis
HERE IS THE EMAIL:
Where's the Beef (Documents)
FROM: Jude Davis
Madeline,
There was once a commercial on TV where a little old lady asked “Where’s the beef?” Wedgefield Plantation residents should be asking “Where are the documents.” I have asked several present Board members if they have seen the historical Confidentiality Document that Al found. They indicated that they haven’t yet seen the document. Only one of the Board members has asked to see it. So far, Al has not produced any documents regarding this matter. Madeline, when I was on the Board, I reviewed almost every file. It’s where I discovered the use in 1998 of individual assessments. It’s also where I found letters from Bob Moran saying that ‘all properties in Wedgefield would benefit if the canals were dredged.’ I went into the attic and reviewed minutes from the ‘80’s and 90’s. I have an excellent ability for recall. It’s one of the reasons that I get upset when the Board authorizes payments to an attorney for an issue that has been opined on before. What a waste! I do not recall any confidentiality agreement as part of our governing documents.
When the Board fails to answer a resident concern they are ALL violating the “Code of Ethics.” By ignoring questions or refusing to allow the inspection of documents, they are not treating residents with respect. No WPA Board should be allowed to decide that some residents get answered, while others get ignored. They are violating the By-laws over and over again.
You and I both asked to see the historical Confidentiality Agreement that Al miraculously discovered in the files. I have an old policy manual and the agreement wasn’t in that manual. I have looked at the minutes available on-line and can’t find an approved agreement. What Al found may have been a suggestion, but I want to see if it has ever been approved as policy. Either there is proof of approval or the Board, the residents, and the attorney have been seriously mislead. Given the Board’s actions regarding respecting the confidentiality of members accounts, this agreement seems to only be a tool to keep independent thinkers off of committees. We only have one independent thinker, John McBride, and he gets ignored or ridiculed by the “ power that is.” His questions are legitimate, but he receives no support.
The attorney assured all residents that the liability afforded Directors by extension is given to volunteers. Did Moody contact the insurance company to guarantee this? Did he see in in the insurance policy? I,like you, have been sued as an individual for actions that I took as a Board member. The ramifications from this suit will haunt Wedgefield for years. My attorney advised against signing any document where I voluntarily agree to more liability.
I asked two Board members why we sent the management company $53,000 in May. They didn’t know. Who authorized such an amount without bringing it to the Board table? I asked the management company the same question without a response. My questions also went to the Board.
Needless to say, I have not received a response. It seems to me that someone on the Board authorized this payment and the rest of the Board was not informed. We certainly were not informed at the June meeting. Why aren’t the Board members crying foul? Did they read the financial report (such as it is)? If not, shame on them.
This total lack of respect for at least you and me violates the Board’s own Code of Ethics. Who should be answering us? We have a useless Community Liaison. It is the responsibility of the President to make sure that all committee chairs are doing their jobs. Wait, our President is also chair of the ARC. What a fiasco the curb across from you turned out to be. With Pyatt’s suspension of his ruling, how long do we wait? I have waited 18 months and counting for a decision from another judge. Meanwhile, if you drive around you will see unkempt yards, vehicles parked on empty lots, utility trailers, etc. ARC rules are only good if they are consistently applied.
It’s time for all members to get involved. Write and ask what the $53,000 was for, ask to see the documents that Al found, ask to see the management contract and the insurance policy, and demand that the Board STOP meeting in secret.
Jude
BACK TO THE JUNE MEETING - ROADS REPORT, AND A QUESTION - WHAT IS THE HURRY?
Roads Chair, Adam Anderson reported that he had completed his study of the conditions of our roads. He had prepared a map of our roads, marked the areas to be considered for repair, and designated the areas most in need of attention. There is $20,000 in the Roads budget. After discussion it was determined that the management company would assist in securing bids for the project. There was a question whether all contractors considered would be licensed and insured. Mr. LaFrance commented that they would be.
It appears that Anderson did a responsible job of evaluating and preparing a report so that the Board could make a decision on how to proceed. He basically followed a pattern that has been utilized here for years. That is a problem, not Anderson's fault, but a problem for this Board, and many Boards of the past.
The real problem is there is no foundation to the decision making on roads, drainage, the landing, maintainance of buildings, etc.. Every Board has members who claim to be experts, some with real credentials in a specified field, others - figments of their imaginations. We are left with putting our assessment dollars in piece meal fashion, to "make it work for today", knowing tomorrow we'll be back to patch it up again. It is like the homeowner with a home that has dry rot who keeps painting the damage to make it look good for today. There is no real improvement to the home, certainly not to the long term stability of the structure. The root problem hasn't been evaluated, or really addressed.
We'll stay with roads. In 2011, Huggins spent $29,000 on road repair, by a contractor that wasn't licensed or insured. The contractor abandoned the job for months on his first project for $20,000 (There wasn't even a contract.). The Board ignored key areas like huge holes at the circle where over half the association has to drive every day, and rewarded the contractor with an additional $9,000! Two of the roads repaired in 2011 - William Screven and Duck Pond, are on the list again this year. During the 2011 fiasco, we had 3-4 Board Members declaring their vast expertise.
We don't have a comprehensive study/plan, conducted by professionals, who have examined the life expectency of critical elements, developed a long term plan with associated dollars, or a comprehensive date plan to restore and rebuild. We just keep painting the dry rot to the tune of the drummers on the Board, who call themselves experts. Don't misunderstand, I'm not laying this problem at the feet of Anderson as Road Chair.
What we need is a PROFESSIONAL RESERVE STUDY, so that we can set aside funds, follow a plan, and use our funds to care for the foundations of our community.
As to expertise, in the past formulas have been drawn by best guess, allocate funds to tie them up so those canal people have no where to get money, funds have been allocated but not restricted and in the case of the office - just pulled from where ever- ignoring reserve allocations, or review of expeditures in previous years and allocating according to a percent of poor spending. How's that working for us? You be the judge.
The 2009 Board approved a budget for 2010, with $10,000 for a reserve study. The January to June 2010 Board issued a request for proposal, and actually had bids in the office waiting to be opened at the time of the recall. When the new Treasurer was informed (it is in the July 2010 Minutes) of the bids, he said, "we have enought talent on the Board". A lot of our money then went to lawyer fees, and things fell by the wayside with the turmoil at the Board table.
I'm told by a credible source, that when the 2011 Board developed the 2012 budget that $5,000 was included under professional fees for a reserve study. It was stated at the June meeting that there wasn't any money in the budget for a reserve study. I can't verify who is correct. I don't have the 2012 budget that was mailed with our 2011 Annual Meeting packet. I can't write the Board and ask for a copy because they don't answer and the management company doesn't either. IF ANYONE HAS A COPY, WOULD YOU EMAIL IT TO ME.
I don't have much hope for this Board doing the right thing. We have sounds of "we have talent to do this in our community". During the June Meeting we had excuses as to why we had to use the method presented for the immediate allocation of reserves. There was so much dancing around the subject that I don't quite have it all, but it was something about not getting clobbered in another audit and something about taxes, and protecting our non profit status. Listen to the tape for yourself. I might as well say it, you'll claim I'm thinking it, and quite frankly, I am. I don't trust that answer. Why? I was on the 2009 Board. We had the first audit conducted in 4 or 5 years and we weren't given any detail about assignment of reserves as it related to how it impacted the payment of taxes. We were advised to get a professional reserve study Additionally, I wrote to the Board, asked to see the 2010 audit and management letter. I reviewed it in the office. I don't remember all the details of the full report, but I did sit and hand copy the management letter and typed it and published it for you. The management letter usually covers material findings, important findings, and it isn't in there. I'm not making any claims of wrong doing, but here is the management letter for the 2010 audit:
Lawlor & Brady, LLC
It appears that Anderson did a responsible job of evaluating and preparing a report so that the Board could make a decision on how to proceed. He basically followed a pattern that has been utilized here for years. That is a problem, not Anderson's fault, but a problem for this Board, and many Boards of the past.
The real problem is there is no foundation to the decision making on roads, drainage, the landing, maintainance of buildings, etc.. Every Board has members who claim to be experts, some with real credentials in a specified field, others - figments of their imaginations. We are left with putting our assessment dollars in piece meal fashion, to "make it work for today", knowing tomorrow we'll be back to patch it up again. It is like the homeowner with a home that has dry rot who keeps painting the damage to make it look good for today. There is no real improvement to the home, certainly not to the long term stability of the structure. The root problem hasn't been evaluated, or really addressed.
We'll stay with roads. In 2011, Huggins spent $29,000 on road repair, by a contractor that wasn't licensed or insured. The contractor abandoned the job for months on his first project for $20,000 (There wasn't even a contract.). The Board ignored key areas like huge holes at the circle where over half the association has to drive every day, and rewarded the contractor with an additional $9,000! Two of the roads repaired in 2011 - William Screven and Duck Pond, are on the list again this year. During the 2011 fiasco, we had 3-4 Board Members declaring their vast expertise.
We don't have a comprehensive study/plan, conducted by professionals, who have examined the life expectency of critical elements, developed a long term plan with associated dollars, or a comprehensive date plan to restore and rebuild. We just keep painting the dry rot to the tune of the drummers on the Board, who call themselves experts. Don't misunderstand, I'm not laying this problem at the feet of Anderson as Road Chair.
What we need is a PROFESSIONAL RESERVE STUDY, so that we can set aside funds, follow a plan, and use our funds to care for the foundations of our community.
As to expertise, in the past formulas have been drawn by best guess, allocate funds to tie them up so those canal people have no where to get money, funds have been allocated but not restricted and in the case of the office - just pulled from where ever- ignoring reserve allocations, or review of expeditures in previous years and allocating according to a percent of poor spending. How's that working for us? You be the judge.
The 2009 Board approved a budget for 2010, with $10,000 for a reserve study. The January to June 2010 Board issued a request for proposal, and actually had bids in the office waiting to be opened at the time of the recall. When the new Treasurer was informed (it is in the July 2010 Minutes) of the bids, he said, "we have enought talent on the Board". A lot of our money then went to lawyer fees, and things fell by the wayside with the turmoil at the Board table.
I'm told by a credible source, that when the 2011 Board developed the 2012 budget that $5,000 was included under professional fees for a reserve study. It was stated at the June meeting that there wasn't any money in the budget for a reserve study. I can't verify who is correct. I don't have the 2012 budget that was mailed with our 2011 Annual Meeting packet. I can't write the Board and ask for a copy because they don't answer and the management company doesn't either. IF ANYONE HAS A COPY, WOULD YOU EMAIL IT TO ME.
I don't have much hope for this Board doing the right thing. We have sounds of "we have talent to do this in our community". During the June Meeting we had excuses as to why we had to use the method presented for the immediate allocation of reserves. There was so much dancing around the subject that I don't quite have it all, but it was something about not getting clobbered in another audit and something about taxes, and protecting our non profit status. Listen to the tape for yourself. I might as well say it, you'll claim I'm thinking it, and quite frankly, I am. I don't trust that answer. Why? I was on the 2009 Board. We had the first audit conducted in 4 or 5 years and we weren't given any detail about assignment of reserves as it related to how it impacted the payment of taxes. We were advised to get a professional reserve study Additionally, I wrote to the Board, asked to see the 2010 audit and management letter. I reviewed it in the office. I don't remember all the details of the full report, but I did sit and hand copy the management letter and typed it and published it for you. The management letter usually covers material findings, important findings, and it isn't in there. I'm not making any claims of wrong doing, but here is the management letter for the 2010 audit:
Lawlor & Brady, LLC
Certified Public
Accountants
5187 Horry
Drive
Murrells Inlet,
SC 29576
In planning and
performing our audit of the financial statements of the Wedgefield Plantation
Association, Inc. as of and for the year ended Dec. 31, 2010, in accordance with
auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, we
considered the Wedgefield Plantation Association, Inc.'s internal control over
financial reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the
purpose of expressing an opinion on the financial statements, but not for the
purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the organization's
internal control.
Our
consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the
proceeding paragraph and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in
internal control that might be significant deficiencies.
A control
deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. A significant
deficiency is a control deficiency, or a combination of control deficiencies
that adversely affects the Organization's ability to initiate, authorize,
record, process or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote likelihood
that a misstatement of the Organization's financial statements that is more than
inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the Organization's internal
control. We consider the following deficiencies to be significant deficiency in
internal control:
During our audit
we discovered that several invoices were paid without proper back up and
authorization. The auditor will review these during our audit
conference.
During our audit
we discovered that the operating bank reconciliation was not properly prepared.
The closing date of the bank statement did not match with the financial
statement dates and outstanding checks were improperly listed. In addition, the
Edward Jones accounts did not have bank reconciliations prepared resulting in a
significant internal control deficiency internal control
deficiency.
During our audit
we discovered that computer file backups were kept in a file left on the
premises. One copy of the accounting files backup must be kept off-site under
the custody of a responsible party such as the Association's Treasurer or other
executive officer. Although the Association utilizes an on-line backup service
(Carbonite), these services may prove to be inadequate during a power outage or
other weather related situation. When it comes to data security a little
redundancy can go a long way.
This
communication is intended solely for the information and use of management and
the board of directors and is not intended and should not be used by anyone
other than these specified parties.
Why are we spending another $20,000 now, throwing more on top the $29,000 spent last year? What if we had a plan, a reserve study, and we had $49,000 to spend on effective repair and maintenance of our roads? Is our Board just being short sighted again? Not Board Member McBride. He tried to get the 2011 Board to talk about proper studies before we repaired the roads in 2011 and was shut down for Huggin's road plan. He tried to get this Board to consider a reserve study at the June Meeting.
DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? SEND IT TO: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com BE SURE AND NOTE WHETHER YOU WANT YOUR NAME PUBLISHED WITH YOUR COMMENT.
Why are we spending another $20,000 now, throwing more on top the $29,000 spent last year? What if we had a plan, a reserve study, and we had $49,000 to spend on effective repair and maintenance of our roads? Is our Board just being short sighted again? Not Board Member McBride. He tried to get the 2011 Board to talk about proper studies before we repaired the roads in 2011 and was shut down for Huggin's road plan. He tried to get this Board to consider a reserve study at the June Meeting.
DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? SEND IT TO: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com BE SURE AND NOTE WHETHER YOU WANT YOUR NAME PUBLISHED WITH YOUR COMMENT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)